Is there a typical state machine implementation pattern?

You might have seen my answer to another C question where I mentioned FSM! Here is how I do it:

FSM {
  STATE(x) {
    ...
    NEXTSTATE(y);
  }

  STATE(y) {
    ...
    if (x == 0) 
      NEXTSTATE(y);
    else 
      NEXTSTATE(x);
  }
}

With the following macros defined

#define FSM
#define STATE(x)      s_##x :
#define NEXTSTATE(x)  goto s_##x

This can be modified to suit the specific case. For example, you may have a file FSMFILE that you want to drive your FSM, so you could incorporate the action of reading next char into the the macro itself:

#define FSM
#define STATE(x)         s_##x : FSMCHR = fgetc(FSMFILE); sn_##x :
#define NEXTSTATE(x)     goto s_##x
#define NEXTSTATE_NR(x)  goto sn_##x

now you have two types of transitions: one goes to a state and read a new character, the other goes to a state without consuming any input.

You can also automate the handling of EOF with something like:

#define STATE(x)  s_##x  : if ((FSMCHR = fgetc(FSMFILE) == EOF)\
                             goto sx_endfsm;\
                  sn_##x :

#define ENDFSM    sx_endfsm:

The good thing of this approach is that you can directly translate a state diagram you draw into working code and, conversely, you can easily draw a state diagram from the code.

In other techniques for implementing FSM the structure of the transitions is buried in control structures (while, if, switch ...) and controlled by variables value (tipically a state variable) and it may be a complex task to relate the nice diagram to a convoluted code.

I learned this technique from an article appeared on the great "Computer Language" magazine that, unfortunately, is no longer published.

I also have used the table approach. However, there is overhead. Why store a second list of pointers? A function in C without the () is a const pointer. So you can do:

struct state;
typedef void (*state_func_t)( struct state* );

typedef struct state
{
  state_func_t function;

  // other stateful data

} state_t;

void do_state_initial( state_t* );
void do_state_foo( state_t* );
void do_state_bar( state_t* );

void run_state( state_t* i ) {
    i->function(i);
};

int main( void ) {
    state_t state = { do_state_initial };

    while ( 1 ) {
        run_state( state );

        // do other program logic, run other state machines, etc
    }
}

Of course depending on your fear factor (i.e. safety vs speed) you may want to check for valid pointers. For state machines larger than three or so states, the approach above should be less instructions than an equivalent switch or table approach. You could even macro-ize as:

#define RUN_STATE(state_ptr_) ((state_ptr_)->function(state_ptr_))

Also, I feel from the OP's example, that there is a simplification that should be done when thinking about / designing a state machine. I don't thing the transitioning state should be used for logic. Each state function should be able to perform its given role without explicit knowledge of past state(s). Basically you design for how to transition from the state you are in to another state.

Finally, don't start the design of a state machine based on "functional" boundaries, use sub-functions for that. Instead divide the states based on when you will have to wait for something to happen before you can continue. This will help minimize the number of times you have to run the state machine before you get a result. This can be important when writing I/O functions, or interrupt handlers.

Also, a few pros and cons of the classic switch statement:

Pros:

• it is in the langua

There is a book titled Practical Statecharts in C/C++. However, it is way too heavyweight for what we need.