I'm writing a bunch of related preprocessor macros, one of which generates labels which the other one jumps to. I use them in this fashion:
MAKE_FUNNY_JUMPING_LOOP(
MAKE_LABEL();
MAKE_LABEL();
)
I need some way to generate unique labels, one for each inner MAKE_LABEL call, with the preprocessor. I've tried using __LINE__, but since I call MAKE_LABEL inside another macro, they all have the same line and the labels collide.
What I'd like this to expand to is something like:
MAKE_FUNNY_JUMPING_LOOP(
my_cool_label_1: // from first inner macro
...
my_cool_label_2: // from second inner macro
...
)
Is there a way to generate hashes or auto-incrementing integers with the preprocessor?
If you're using GCC or MSVC, there is __COUNTER__.
Other than that, you could do something vomit-worthy, like:
#ifndef USED_1
#define USED_1
1
#else
#ifndef USED_2
#define USED_2
2
/* many many more */
#endif
#endif
I use this:
#define MERGE_(a,b) a##b
#define LABEL_(a) MERGE_(unique_name_, a)
#define UNIQUE_NAME LABEL_(__LINE__)
int main()
{
int UNIQUE_NAME = 1;
return 0;
}
... and get the following:
int main()
{
int unique_name_8 = 1;
return 0;
}
As others noted, __COUNTER__ is the easy but nonstandard way of doing this.
If you need extra portability, or for other cool preprocessor tricks, the Boost Preprocessor library (which works for C as well as C++) will work. For example, the following header file will output a unique label wherever it's included.
#include <boost/preprocessor/arithmetic/inc.hpp>
#include <boost/preprocessor/slot/slot.hpp>
#if !defined(UNIQUE_LABEL)
#define UNIQUE_LABEL
#define BOOST_PP_VALUE 1
#include BOOST_PP_ASSIGN_SLOT(1)
#undef BOOST_PP_VALUE
#else
#define BOOST_PP_VALUE BOOST_PP_INC(BOOST_PP_SLOT(1))
#include BOOST_PP_ASSIGN_SLOT(1)
#undef BOOST_PP_VALUE
#endif
BOOST_PP_CAT(my_cool_label_, BOOST_PP_SLOT(1)):
Sample:
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
#include "unique_label.h"
printf("%x\n", 1234);
#include "unique_label.h"
printf("%x\n", 1234);
#include "unique_label.h"
return 0;
}
preprocesses to
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
my_cool_label_1:
printf("%x\n", 1234);
my_cool_label_2:
printf("%x\n", 1234);
my_cool_label_3:
return 0;
}
I can't think of a way to automatically generate them but you could pass a parameter to MAKE_LABEL:
#define MAKE_LABEL(n) my_cool_label_##n:
Then...
MAKE_FUNNY_JUMPING_LOOP(
MAKE_LABEL(0);
MAKE_LABEL(1);
)
You could do this:
#define MAKE_LABEL() \
do { \
my_cool_label: \
/* some stuff */; \
goto my_cool_label; \
/* other stuff */; \
} while (0)
This keeps the scope of the label local, allowing any number of them inside the primary macro.
If you want the labels to be accessed more globally, it's not clear how your macro "MAKE_FUNNY_JUMPING_LOOP" references these labels. Can you explain?
It doesn't seem possible with a standard preprocessor, although you could fake it out by putting parameters within MAKE_LABEL or MAKE_FUNNY_JUMPING_LOOP, and use token pasting to create the label.
There's nothing preventing you from making your own preprocessing script that does the automatic increment for you. However, it won't be a standard C/C++ file in that case.
A list of commands available: http://www.cppreference.com/wiki/preprocessor/start
Related
I have a project where there are two different preprocessor macros with the same name, defined in two different include files (from two different libraries), and I have to check if they have the same value at build time.
So far I could make this check at run time, assigning the macro values to different variables in different implementation files, each including only one of the headers involved.
How can I do it at build time?
This is what I tried so far (where Macro1.h and Macro2.h are third-party files I cannot modify):
Header files:
TestMultiMacros.h:
#ifndef TEST_MULTI_MACROS_H
#define TEST_MULTI_MACROS_H
struct Values
{
static const unsigned int val1, val2;
static const unsigned int c1 = 123, c2 = 123;
};
#endif // TEST_MULTI_MACROS_H
Macro1.h:
#ifndef MACRO1_H
#define MACRO1_H
#define MY_MACRO 123
#endif // MACRO1_H
Macro2.h:
#ifndef MACRO2_H
#define MACRO2_H
#define MY_MACRO 123
#endif // MACRO2_H
Implementation files:
TestMultiMacros1.cpp:
#include "TestMultiMacros.h"
#include "Macro1.h"
const unsigned int Values::val1 = MY_MACRO;
TestMultiMacros2.cpp:
#include "TestMultiMacros.h"
#include "Macro2.h"
const unsigned int Values::val2 = MY_MACRO;
entrypoint.cpp:
#include "TestMultiMacros.h"
using namespace std;
static_assert(Values::val1 == Values::val2, "OK"); // error: expression did not evaluate to a constant
static_assert(Values::c1 == Values::c2, "OK");
int main()
{
}
I would be interested in a solution using both C++11 and C++17.
Include the first header. Then save the value of the macro to a constexpr variable:
constexpr auto foo = MY_MACRO;
Then include the second header. It should silently override MY_MACRO. If your compiler starts complaining, do #undef MY_MACRO first.
Then compare the new value of the macro with the variable using a static_assert:
static_assert(foo == MY_MACRO, "whatever");
Here's a very simple C++17 test which works with arbitrary (non-function) macros by comparing the text of the macro expansion. For c++11, which lacks the constexpr comparison in std::string_view, you can write it yourself in a couple of lines, as shown in this answer.
#include <string_view>
#define STRINGIFY(x) STRINGIFY_(x)
#define STRINGIFY_(x) #x
#include "macro1.h"
//#define MY_MACRO A night to remember
constexpr const char* a = STRINGIFY(MY_MACRO);
#undef MY_MACRO
#include "macro2.h"
//#define MY_MACRO A knight to remember
constexpr const char* b = STRINGIFY(MY_MACRO);
static_assert(std::string_view(a) == b, "Macros differ");
int main() { }
(Godbolt: https://godbolt.org/z/nH5qVo)
Of course, this depends on what exactly you mean by equality of macros. This version will report failure if one header file has
#define MY_MACRO (2+2)
and the other has
#define MY_MACRO 4
Also worth noting that stringification normalises whitespace but it does not normalise the presence of whitespace other than trimming the ends. So (2 + 2) and (2 + 2) will compare as equal, but not (2+2) and ( 2 + 2 )
I want to use macros to quickly create inlined functions in headers, these functions are related to a base class which I am subclassing. I'll put the definitions inside the base class header but I do not want to pollute everything that include these headers with all macro definitions, so I would like to write something like this (which unfortunately doesn't work):
#define BEGIN_MACROS \
#define MACRO_1(...) ...\
#define MACRO_2(...) ...\
#define MACRO_3(...) ...
#define END_MACROS \
#undef MACRO_1\
#undef MACRO_2\
#undef MACRO_3
And then use it like:
BEGIN_MACROS
MACRO_1(...)
MACRO_2(...)
MACRO_3(...)
END_MACROS
perhaps should I use something like this?
#include "definemacros.h"
MACRO_1(...)
MACRO_2(...)
MACRO_3(...)
#include "undefmacros.h"
And put definitions and "undefinitions" in two separate headers...
Or is there a better approach overall to overcome this kind of problems?
Or do you suggest to avoid at all the use of macros and/or macros in headers?
Edited to include specific use case:
definition:
#define GET_SET_FIELD_VALUE_INT(camelcased, underscored)\
inline int rget ## camelcased () { return this->getFieldValue( #underscored ).toInt(); }\
inline void rset ## camelcased (int value) { this->setFieldValue( #underscored , value); }
use:
class PaymentRecord : public RecObj
{
public:
GET_SET_FIELD_VALUE_INT(PriceIndex, price_index)
//produces this
inline int rgetPriceIndex() { return this->getFieldValue("price_index").toInt(); }
inline void rsetPriceIndex(int value) { this->setFieldValue("price_index", value); }
};
you can not stack up more defines into single line (at least to my knowledge... What I would try to do is encapsulate those into 2 separate files instead like this:
file macro_beg.h:
#define MACRO_1(...) ...
#define MACRO_2(...) ...
#define MACRO_3(...) ...
file macro_end.h:
#undef MACRO_1
#undef MACRO_2
#undef MACRO_3
It just like your second case but the macros are not in single line ...
#include "macro_beg.h"
MACRO_1(...);
MACRO_2(...);
MACRO_3(...);
#include "macro_end.h"
But as Some programmer dude commented this might not work properly or at all depending on the compiler preprocessor and macro complexity or nesting with class/template code. For simple stuff however this should work.
Is it possible to disable chunks of code with c/c++ preprocessor depending on some definition, without instrumenting code with #ifdef #endif?
// if ENABLE_TEST_SONAR is not defined, test code will be eliminated by preprocessor
TEST_BEGIN(SONAR)
uint8_t sonar_range = get_sonar_measurement(i);
TEST_ASSERT(sonar_range < 300)
TEST_ASSERT(sonar_range > 100)
TEST_END
Functionally equivalent to something as follows:
#ifdef TEST_SONAR
serial_print("test_case sonar:\r\n");
uint8_t sonar_range = get_sonar_measurement(i);
serial_print(" test sonar_range < 300:%d\r\n", sonar_range < 300);
serial_print(" test sonar_range > 100:%d\r\n", sonar_range > 100);
#endif TEST_SONAR
Multiple lines can be disabled only with #ifdef or #if but single lines can be disabled with a macro. Note that multiple lines can be combined with \
#ifdef DOIT
#define MYMACRO(x) \
some code \
more code \
even more \
#else
#define MYMACRO(x)
#endif
Then when you call MYMACRO anplace that code will either be included or not based on whether DOIT is defined
That's the closest you can come and is used frequently for debugging code
EDIT: On a whim I tried the following and it seems to work (in MSVC++ and g++):
#define DOIT
#ifdef DOIT
#define MYMACRO(x) x
#else
#define MYMACRO(x)
#endif
void foo(int, int, int)
{
}
int main(int, char **)
{
int x = 7;
MYMACRO(
if (x)
return 27;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
foo(1, 2, 3);
)
}
No, the only way to disable sections of codes effectively using preprocessing is by #ifdef #endif. Theoretically, you could use #if identifier, but it's better to stick to checking whether a variable is defined.
Another option (perhaps) is to use a preprocessing macro:
Edit:
Perhaps using plain functions and #ifdef might work better?
function test_function() {
/* Do whatever test */
}
#define TESTING_IDENTIFIER
#define TEST( i, f ) if ((i)) do { f } while (0)
Then, for each test, you define a unique identifier and call it by providing the identifier first and the function (with parenthesis) second.
TEST( TESTING_IDENTIFIER, test_function() );
Finally, f can be anything that's syntactically correct -- You don't have to create a function for every test, you can put the code inline.
I will anyway mention an obvious solution of
#define DO_TEST_SONAR
#ifdef DO_TEST_SONAR
#define TEST_SONAR if(true) {
#else
#define TEST_SONAR if(false) {
#endif
#define TEST_SONAR_END }
...
TEST_SONAR
code
TEST_SONAR_END
The code will still get compiled, not completely removed, but some smart compilers might optimize it out.
UPD: just tested and
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
//#define DO_TEST_SONAR
#ifdef DO_TEST_SONAR
#define TEST_SONAR if(true) {
#else
#define TEST_SONAR if(false) {
#endif
#define TEST_SONAR_END }
int main() {
TEST_SONAR
cout << "abc" << endl;
TEST_SONAR_END
}
produces absolutely identical binaries with cout line commented out and non commented, so indeed the code is stripped. Using g++ 4.9.2 with -O2.
I want to save the original textual value of a macro so that I can then redefine the macro and still refer to the original value. My use case involves a macro to a macro, so that the value I am trying to save is still itself a macro. I have a small example of attempts in an online interpreter, which I am copying the code from here. I am aware that other SO questions discuss similar ideas but I have not found anything that covers my use case.
#include <stdio.h>
#define STR(X) (#X)
#define GLOBAL_INT (3)
// I AM TRYING TO SAVE THE TEXTUAL MACRO CONTENT "GLOBAL_INT" (WITHOUT THE QUOTES)
// IN ANOTHER MACRO SO THAT I CAN UNDEFINE GIM AND STILL REFER TO GLOBAL_INT
#define GIM (GLOBAL_INT)
#define GIM_SAVE (GIM)
#define GIM_SAVE_STR (STR(GIM))
#define STR_GIM_SAVE (STR(GIM_SAVE))
const char *strGimSave = STR(GIM_SAVE);
const char *gimSaveStr = GIM_SAVE_STR;
const char *strGimSaveM = STR_GIM_SAVE;
const char *gimStr = STR(GIM);
#undef GIM
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
printf("strGimSave=%s\n", strGimSave);
printf("gimSaveStr=%s\n", gimSaveStr);
printf("strGimSaveM=%s\n", strGimSaveM);
printf("gimStr=%s\n", gimStr);
const char *gim_save = STR(GIM_SAVE);
const char *gim_save_str = GIM_SAVE_STR;
const char *str_gim_save = STR_GIM_SAVE;
printf("\ngim_save=%s\n", gim_save);
printf("gim_save_str=%s\n", gim_save_str);
printf("str_gim_save=%s\n", str_gim_save);
return 0;
}
Same code in online interpreter
Edit: I am trying to output "GLOBAL_INT" in the above code. The above code outputs:
strGimSave=GIM_SAVE
gimSaveStr=GIM
strGimSaveM=GIM_SAVE
gimStr=GIM
gim_save=GIM_SAVE
gim_save_str=GIM
str_gim_save=GIM_SAVE
It is not possible. C/C++ preprocessor expands macros on evaluation only. There is no way to tell it to define macro to expanded result of another.
That said, the first part of your sample would actually do what you want if you used correct definition of STR:
#include <stdio.h>
// HERE, extra level of indirection
#define STR2(X) (#X)
#define STR(X) STR2(X)
#define GLOBAL_INT (3)
#define GIM (GLOBAL_INT)
#define GIM_SAVE (GIM)
#define GIM_SAVE_STR (STR(GIM))
#define STR_GIM_SAVE (STR(GIM_SAVE))
const char *strGimSave = STR(GIM_SAVE);
const char *gimSaveStr = GIM_SAVE_STR;
const char *strGimSaveM = STR_GIM_SAVE;
const char *gimStr = STR(GIM);
#undef GIM
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
printf("strGimSave=%s\n", strGimSave);
printf("gimSaveStr=%s\n", gimSaveStr);
printf("strGimSaveM=%s\n", strGimSaveM);
printf("gimStr=%s\n", gimStr);
const char *gim_save = STR(GIM_SAVE);
const char *gim_save_str = GIM_SAVE_STR;
const char *str_gim_save = STR_GIM_SAVE;
printf("\ngim_save=%s\n", gim_save);
printf("gim_save_str=%s\n", gim_save_str);
printf("str_gim_save=%s\n", str_gim_save);
return 0;
}
Now produces
strGimSave=(((3)))
gimSaveStr=((3))
strGimSaveM=(((3)))
gimStr=((3))
gim_save=(GIM)
gim_save_str=GIM
str_gim_save=(GIM)
(See live on coliru)
As you see once you #undef GIM the macros stop expanding to "3", but the string constants created while GIM was defined retain the value. With all the parenthesis that you've put into those macros.
When applying preprocessor operators to macro argumments, you should add an extra level of indirection (Another macro) just to expand the macro argumments properly. Consider this example using the token concatenation operator (##):
#define TOKEN_CAT_IMPL(x,y) x##x
#define TOKEN_CAT(x,y) TOKEN_CAT_IMPL(x,y) // <--- Here x and y are expanded before passed
Now you could use it for whatever you like:
#define FOO_IDENTIFIER( id ) TOKEN_CAT( foo_ , id );
#define ID hello
int FOO_IDENTIFIER( ID ) = 0; // int foo_hello = 0;
Here is a running example.
EDIT:
Here is your code working by applying the solution explained here. Note how the second outputs are GIM, since that macro was undefined and GIM was treated as a token only.
I need a macro to expand to a c++ comment, is that possible?
I've got this:
#define SLASH(x,y) x y
#define OUT SLASH(/,/)
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
OUT << "text";
return 0;
}
And need to expand to this:
{
// << "text";
return 0;
}
I've also tried this:
#define SLASH(x) /x
#define OUT SLASH(/)
But the result is still the same:
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
/ / << "text";
return 0;
}
No it's not possible because in C++ comments are removed before macros are expanded.
(See 2.1 of the standard, comment removal happens in phase 3, macro expansion in phase 4.)
What about replacing it with a function object that does nothing instead?
static class NullOutput {
public:
template <typename T>
const NullOutput &operator<<(T arg) const {
return *this;
}
} NullOutputObj;
#define OUT NullOutputObj
The net result is that the object is removed from the code and replaced by inlined template expansions, that are then optimized out as they do nothing. Result is absolutely no code overhead.
As others mentioned there is no guaranteed way to define the kind of macro you are looking for. Other ways to achieve results that are similar to what you seem to be trying to achieve are wrapping your output statement in a conditional block or define a custom output stream that just discarded all output. The two approaches may even be combined so that behaviour could be switched by changing a single macro definition.
Comments are removed from the source code before the preprocessor runs. So you cannot do this.
an alternate to what you want to achieve would be this :
http://donjaffer.blogspot.in/2012/09/dprintf-debug-macro-in-c.html
#define DEBUG // comment if you do not want the debug statments to appear.
#ifdef DEBUG
#define DPRINTF(fmt, ...) \
do { printf("my_file: " fmt, ## __VA_ARGS__); } while (0)
#else
#define DPRINTF(fmt, ...) \
do { } while (0)
#endif
wherever you are trying to print the statements, instead of COUT << you can use
DPRINTF("Your text here\n");