The ‘C’ test. Part – XV

Typedef
15. Typedef is frequently used in C to declare synonyms for pre-existing data types. It is also possible to use the preprocessor to do something similar. For instance, consider the following code fragment:

#define dPS struct s *
typedef struct s * tPS;

The intent in both cases is to define dPS and tPS to be pointers to structure s. Which method, if any, is preferred and why?

This is a very subtle question, and anyone who gets it right (for the right reason) is to be congratulated or condemned (“get a life” springs to mind). The answer is the typedef is preferred. Consider the declarations:

dPS p1,p2;
tPS p3,p4;

The first expands to:

struct s * p1, p2;

which defines p1 to be a pointer to the structure and p2 to be an actual structure, which is probably not what you wanted. The second example correctly defines p3 and p4 to be pointers

The ‘C’ test. Part – XIV

Dynamic memory allocation

14. Although not as common as in non-embedded computers, embedded systems do still dynamically allocate memory from the heap. What are the problems with dynamic memory allocation in embedded systems?

Here, I expect the user to mention memory fragmentation, problems with garbage collection, variable execution time, and so on. This topic has been covered extensively in ESP , mainly by P.J. Plauger. His explanations are far more insightful than anything I could offer here, so go and read those back issues! Having lulled the candidate into a sense of false security, I then offer up this tidbit:

What does the following code fragment output and why?

char *ptr;
if ((ptr = (char *)malloc(0)) ==NULL)

puts(“Got a null pointer”);
else
puts(“Got a valid pointer”);

This is a fun question. I stumbled across this only recently when a colleague of mine inadvertently passed a value of 0 to malloc and got back a valid pointer! That is, the above code will output “Got a valid pointer.” I use this to start a discussion on whether the interviewee thinks this is the correct thing for the library routine to do. Getting the right answer here is not nearly as important as the way you approach the problem and the rationale for your decision.

…to be continued 

The ‘C’ test. Part – XIII

13. Comment on the following code fragment.

unsigned int zero = 0;
unsigned int compzero = 0xFFFF;
/*1’s complement of zero */

On machines where an int is not 16 bits, this will be incorrect. It should be coded:

unsigned int compzero = ~0;

This question really gets to whether the candidate understands the importance of word length on a computer. In my experience, good embedded programmers are critically aware of the underlying hardware and its limitations, whereas computer programmers tend to dismiss the hardware as a necessary annoyance.

By this stage, candidates are either completely demoralized-or they’re on a roll and having a good time. If it’s obvious that the candidate isn’t very good, then the test is terminated at this point. However, if the candidate is doing well, then I throw in these supplemental questions. These questions are hard, and I expect that only the very best candidates will do well on them. In posing these questions, I’m looking more at the way the candidate tackles the problems, rather than the answers.

…to be continued 

The ‘C’ test. Part – XII

Code examples

12. What does the following code output and why?

void foo(void)
{
           unsigned int a = 6;
           int b = -20;
          (a+b > 6) ? puts(“> 6″) : puts(“<= 6″);

}

This question tests whether you understand the integer promotion rules in C-an area that I find is very poorly understood by many developers.

Anyway, the answer is that this outputs “> 6.” The reason for this is that expressions involving signed and unsigned types have all operands promoted to unsigned types. Thus -20 becomes a very large positive integer and the expression evaluates to greater than 6. This is a very important point in embedded systems where unsigned data types should be used frequently (see Reference 2).

If you get this one wrong, you are perilously close to not getting the job.

…to be continued

The ‘C’ test. Part – XI

Interrupts
11. Interrupts are an important part of embedded systems. Consequently, many compiler vendors offer an extension to standard C to support interrupts. Typically, this new keyword is __interrupt. The following code uses __interrupt to define an interrupt service routine (ISR). Comment on the code.

__interrupt double compute_area
(double
radius)
{
double area = PI * radius *
radius;
printf(“\nArea = %f”, area);
return area;
}

This function has so much wrong with it, it’s hard to know where to start:

• ISRs cannot return a value. If you don’t understand this, you aren’t hired

• ISRs cannot be passed parameters. See the first item for your employment prospects if you missed this

• On many processors/compilers, floating-point operations are not necessarily re-entrant. In some cases one needs to stack additional registers. In other cases, one simply cannot do floating point in an ISR. Furthermore, given that a general rule of thumb is that ISRs should be short and sweet, one wonders about the wisdom of doing floating-point math here

• In a vein similar to the third point, printf() often has problems with reentrancy and performance. If you missed points three and four, I wouldn’t be too hard on you. Needless to say, if you got these last two points, your employment prospects are looking better and better

…to be continued