I want to create a macro that replaces all calls to printf, more specifically mbedtls_printf (which behaves the exact sameway as printf) with nothing.
I know I can use #define mbedtls_printf to replace mbedtls_printf with nothing, but this will still leave the parameters/parenthesis intact.
Edit - I forgot to mention that mbedtls_printf is a macro that replaces itself with sgx_printf
I would go with:
#define printf(...) (0)
The benefit here is that it will continue to compile in cases where someone actually bothers to check the return from printf (rare but not unheard of).
The following works, at least with gcc 8. A brief search suggests that variadic macros were introduced with C99:
#define printf(...) do { } while (0)
int main()
{
printf("Hello %s?\n", "world");
return 0;
}
You want to use the ol' "do {} while (0)" trick, in order to avoid surprises like:
if (something)
printf("Something else");
will_this_be_invoked_or_not();
You can't make printf() disappear completely. Because this would make the next line a logical part of the preceding if statement. Hillarity ensues. That's why you still have to leave something in place.
If you completely no-op out the printf statements, there may be a bug lurking. Consider the following code:
printf("Result is %d\n", DoSomethingVeryImportant());
When you replace the printf call with a macro, you likely still want to make sure the inner function call to DoSomethingVeryImportant() is invoked. Otherwise, you've changed the logic of your program.
And I suppose you might want to have your mbedtls_printf actually call printf for debug builds, but be a no-op in a retail build.
If all of the above is of value, consider this as mbedtls_printf.h:
#ifndef MBEDTLS_PRINTF_H
#define MBEDTLS_PRINTF_H
#include <stdarg.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#ifdef DEBUG_BUILD
inline int printf_stub(const char* s, ...)
{
va_list args;
va_start(args, s);
vprintf(s, args);
va_end(args);
}
#define mbedtls_printf(...) printf_stub(__VA_ARGS__)
#else
inline int printf_stub(...){return 1;}
#define mbedtls_printf(...) printf_stub(__VA_ARGS__)
#endif
#endif
Then in code:
#include <iostream>
#include "mbedtls_printf.h"
int ImportantFunction()
{
std::cout << "Really important code" << std::endl;
return 42;
}
int main()
{
mbedtls_printf("Result of a very important step: %d\n", ImportantFunction());
mbedtls_printf("This just happened");
mbedtls_printf("Result of a another important step: ", 43, 44, ImportantFunction());
return 0;
}
The compiler will optimize out the empty function call and still invoke ImportantFunction() as it was doing originally.
I know I can use #define mbedtls_printf to replace mbedtls_printf with nothing, but this will still leave the parameters/parenthesis intact.
It's OK if the argument list remains, because then it will be treated as an expression. If we have an expression and we do nothing to it, then it will just be optimized out (on any decent compiler). Consider the following:
int x(char a, double b)
{
return printf("%c %f\n", a, b);
}
#define x
int main(void)
{
x('P', 3.14);
}
The compiler sees the following code for main:
('P', 3.14);
This expression evaluates to 3.14 (the comma operator returns its right-hand operand). Such an expression is quietly optimized.
Just use a lambda: (Variadic macros since C99)
#define printf(...) []{}()
What this does is simply replace the printf() calls to []{}()... This just means an empty function call... which can be formatted to be like this:
#define printf(...) [] { \
}()
Or, even this suffices:
// Replacing printf() with an empty function that just takes variadic arguments
#define printf [](...){}
Edit: You can also use:
#define printf void(0)
Related
Please note C++03! any C++11 solutions are not good for me, but do post them just for knowledge sake.
I know the preprocessor can do things like:
#define FOO 4
#if FOO == 4
cout<<"hi"<<endl;
#endif
What I need is:
#define BAR(X)\
#if X == 4\
cout<<"hi"<<endl;\
#endif
main.cpp
BAR(4)
I don't see why all the needed information wouldn't be available in preprocessor time.
So, Please tell me how to achieve this kind of behavior.
edit 1:
A normal if condition won't work for my case, because I also do things like:
#define BAR(X)\
#if X == 4\
int poop;
#elif
double poop;
#endif
As you've discovered, you can't do this in the way that you've attempted. Macro expansion simply doesn't have inline conditional evaluation, so you'd have to create multiple macros instead.
However, if you're just trying to "optimise" normal code flow, you can rely on your compiler's optimizations. Consider this:
if (true) {
std::cout << "Hi\n";
}
The resulting program will not have any conditional checks in it, because true is always truthy.
Similarly:
if (false) {
std::cout << "Hi\n";
}
The resulting program will not contain any code to produce output, because false is never truthy.
Similarly:
if (4 != 4) {
std::cout << "Hi\n";
}
The program will still not contain the std::cout code.
In many cases, you may use this fact to keep your code simple and achieve your desired effect:
#define BAR(X) \
if ((X) == 4) {
std::cout << "hi" << std::endl;\
}
The constraint here, of course, is that an if statement must be valid at the place you write BAR(5), or BAR(42) or BAR(999).
This is also flexible in that now you can use a runtime value (like BAR(i)) and, although the conditional can no longer be collapsed at compile-time, in such a case you'd have no reason to expect that anyway.
I take this approach in my logging macro: the macro, when called for LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG, expands to a conditional that is statically known never to match, in release builds.
The idea is to let the compiler do the optimising.
You're also going to want to consider using a little macro expansion trick to avoid problems with subsequent else clauses.
You can do this with the preprocessor if the domain of values for the conditional parameter is well-known (and preferably small). For example, supposing the parameter can only have the values 0 and 1:
#define DOIT_0(X)
#define DOIT_1(X) X
#define CONCAT_(X, Y) X ## Y
#define MAYBE(X) CONCAT_(DOIT_, X)
#define BAR(X) MAYBE(X)( cout<<"hi"<<endl; )
#define YESNO 0
BAR(YESNO)
Live on coliru.
Beware of unprotected commas in the argument to BAR.
For equality checks, again over a small range:
#define CONCAT3_(X,Y,Z) X ## Y ## Z
#define EQUAL_0_0(X) X
#define EQUAL_1_1(X) X
#define EQUAL_1_1(X) X
#define EQUAL_0_1(X)
#define EQUAL_0_2(X)
#define EQUAL_1_0(X)
#define EQUAL_1_2(X)
#define EQUAL_2_0(X)
#define EQUAL_2_1(X)
#define DO_IF_EQUAL(X, Y) CONCAT3_(EQUAL_, X, Y)
#define BAR(X) DO_IF_EQUAL(X, 2) ( std::cout << "hi\n"; )
If you can use Boost, you could do this with Boost.Preprocessor:
#define BAR(X) BOOST_PP_EXPR_IF(BOOST_PP_EQUAL(X, 4), cout << "hi" << endl;)
Some answers here were better than others.
The one I accepted was posted by Christian Kiewiet in a comment, but it was the most accurate for my purpose.
Here is the expanded version:
useCases.h
enum UseCases{
useCase1=0,
useCase2,
useCaseNumber//always last for iterations
}
specializer.h
#include "useCases.h"
<template UseCases theCase>
struct StaticCase{
//empty, thus accidents calling from this can't happen
}
//specialization
template<>
class StaticCase<UseCases::useCase1>{
typedef int T;
static foo(T arg){cout<<"case1";};
}
template<>
class StaticCase<UseCases::useCase2>{
typedef double T;
static foo(){cout<<"case2";};
}
Now, I can do
#define BAR1(useCase) StaticCase<useCase>::foo();
or
#define BAR2(useCase) StaticCase<useCase>::T var;
and the call:
BAR1(UseCases::useCase1)//output - case1
BAR1(UseCases::useCase2)//output - case2
In many C/C++ macros I'm seeing the code of the macro wrapped in what seems like a meaningless do while loop. Here are examples.
#define FOO(X) do { f(X); g(X); } while (0)
#define FOO(X) if (1) { f(X); g(X); } else
I can't see what the do while is doing. Why not just write this without it?
#define FOO(X) f(X); g(X)
The do ... while and if ... else are there to make it so that a
semicolon after your macro always means the same thing. Let's say you
had something like your second macro.
#define BAR(X) f(x); g(x)
Now if you were to use BAR(X); in an if ... else statement, where the bodies of the if statement were not wrapped in curly brackets, you'd get a bad surprise.
if (corge)
BAR(corge);
else
gralt();
The above code would expand into
if (corge)
f(corge); g(corge);
else
gralt();
which is syntactically incorrect, as the else is no longer associated with the if. It doesn't help to wrap things in curly braces within the macro, because a semicolon after the braces is syntactically incorrect.
if (corge)
{f(corge); g(corge);};
else
gralt();
There are two ways of fixing the problem. The first is to use a comma to sequence statements within the macro without robbing it of its ability to act like an expression.
#define BAR(X) f(X), g(X)
The above version of bar BAR expands the above code into what follows, which is syntactically correct.
if (corge)
f(corge), g(corge);
else
gralt();
This doesn't work if instead of f(X) you have a more complicated body of code that needs to go in its own block, say for example to declare local variables. In the most general case the solution is to use something like do ... while to cause the macro to be a single statement that takes a semicolon without confusion.
#define BAR(X) do { \
int i = f(X); \
if (i > 4) g(i); \
} while (0)
You don't have to use do ... while, you could cook up something with if ... else as well, although when if ... else expands inside of an if ... else it leads to a "dangling else", which could make an existing dangling else problem even harder to find, as in the following code.
if (corge)
if (1) { f(corge); g(corge); } else;
else
gralt();
The point is to use up the semicolon in contexts where a dangling semicolon is erroneous. Of course, it could (and probably should) be argued at this point that it would be better to declare BAR as an actual function, not a macro.
In summary, the do ... while is there to work around the shortcomings of the C preprocessor. When those C style guides tell you to lay off the C preprocessor, this is the kind of thing they're worried about.
Macros are copy/pasted pieces of text the pre-processor will put in the genuine code; the macro's author hopes the replacement will produce valid code.
There are three good "tips" to succeed in that:
Help the macro behave like genuine code
Normal code is usually ended by a semi-colon. Should the user view code not needing one...
doSomething(1) ;
DO_SOMETHING_ELSE(2) // <== Hey? What's this?
doSomethingElseAgain(3) ;
This means the user expects the compiler to produce an error if the semi-colon is absent.
But the real real good reason is that at some time, the macro's author will perhaps need to replace the macro with a genuine function (perhaps inlined). So the macro should really behave like one.
So we should have a macro needing semi-colon.
Produce a valid code
As shown in jfm3's answer, sometimes the macro contains more than one instruction. And if the macro is used inside a if statement, this will be problematic:
if(bIsOk)
MY_MACRO(42) ;
This macro could be expanded as:
#define MY_MACRO(x) f(x) ; g(x)
if(bIsOk)
f(42) ; g(42) ; // was MY_MACRO(42) ;
The g function will be executed regardless of the value of bIsOk.
This means that we must have to add a scope to the macro:
#define MY_MACRO(x) { f(x) ; g(x) ; }
if(bIsOk)
{ f(42) ; g(42) ; } ; // was MY_MACRO(42) ;
Produce a valid code 2
If the macro is something like:
#define MY_MACRO(x) int i = x + 1 ; f(i) ;
We could have another problem in the following code:
void doSomething()
{
int i = 25 ;
MY_MACRO(32) ;
}
Because it would expand as:
void doSomething()
{
int i = 25 ;
int i = 32 + 1 ; f(i) ; ; // was MY_MACRO(32) ;
}
This code won't compile, of course. So, again, the solution is using a scope:
#define MY_MACRO(x) { int i = x + 1 ; f(i) ; }
void doSomething()
{
int i = 25 ;
{ int i = 32 + 1 ; f(i) ; } ; // was MY_MACRO(32) ;
}
The code behaves correctly again.
Combining semi-colon + scope effects?
There is one C/C++ idiom that produces this effect: The do/while loop:
do
{
// code
}
while(false) ;
The do/while can create a scope, thus encapsulating the macro's code, and needs a semi-colon in the end, thus expanding into code needing one.
The bonus?
The C++ compiler will optimize away the do/while loop, as the fact its post-condition is false is known at compile time. This means that a macro like:
#define MY_MACRO(x) \
do \
{ \
const int i = x + 1 ; \
f(i) ; g(i) ; \
} \
while(false)
void doSomething(bool bIsOk)
{
int i = 25 ;
if(bIsOk)
MY_MACRO(42) ;
// Etc.
}
will expand correctly as
void doSomething(bool bIsOk)
{
int i = 25 ;
if(bIsOk)
do
{
const int i = 42 + 1 ; // was MY_MACRO(42) ;
f(i) ; g(i) ;
}
while(false) ;
// Etc.
}
and is then compiled and optimized away as
void doSomething(bool bIsOk)
{
int i = 25 ;
if(bIsOk)
{
f(43) ; g(43) ;
}
// Etc.
}
#jfm3 - You have a nice answer to the question. You might also want to add that the macro idiom also prevents the possibly more dangerous (because there's no error) unintended behavior with simple 'if' statements:
#define FOO(x) f(x); g(x)
if (test) FOO( baz);
expands to:
if (test) f(baz); g(baz);
which is syntactically correct so there's no compiler error, but has the probably unintended consequence that g() will always be called.
The above answers explain the meaning of these constructs, but there is a significant difference between the two that was not mentioned. In fact, there is a reason to prefer the do ... while to the if ... else construct.
The problem of the if ... else construct is that it does not force you to put the semicolon. Like in this code:
FOO(1)
printf("abc");
Although we left out the semicolon (by mistake), the code will expand to
if (1) { f(X); g(X); } else
printf("abc");
and will silently compile (although some compilers may issue a warning for unreachable code). But the printf statement will never be executed.
do ... while construct does not have such problem, since the only valid token after the while(0) is a semicolon.
Explanation
do {} while (0) and if (1) {} else are to make sure that the macro is expanded to only 1 instruction. Otherwise:
if (something)
FOO(X);
would expand to:
if (something)
f(X); g(X);
And g(X) would be executed outside the if control statement. This is avoided when using do {} while (0) and if (1) {} else.
Better alternative
With a GNU statement expression (not a part of standard C), you have a better way than do {} while (0) and if (1) {} else to solve this, by simply using ({}):
#define FOO(X) ({f(X); g(X);})
And this syntax is compatible with return values (note that do {} while (0) isn't), as in:
return FOO("X");
While it is expected that compilers optimize away the do { ... } while(false); loops, there is another solution which would not require that construct. The solution is to use the comma operator:
#define FOO(X) (f(X),g(X))
or even more exotically:
#define FOO(X) g((f(X),(X)))
While this will work well with separate instructions, it will not work with cases where variables are constructed and used as part of the #define :
#define FOO(X) (int s=5,f((X)+s),g((X)+s))
With this one would be forced to use the do/while construct.
Jens Gustedt's P99 preprocessor library (yes, the fact that such a thing exists blew my mind too!) improves on the if(1) { ... } else construct in a small but significant way by defining the following:
#define P99_NOP ((void)0)
#define P99_PREFER(...) if (1) { __VA_ARGS__ } else
#define P99_BLOCK(...) P99_PREFER(__VA_ARGS__) P99_NOP
The rationale for this is that, unlike the do { ... } while(0) construct, break and continue still work inside the given block, but the ((void)0) creates a syntax error if the semicolon is omitted after the macro call, which would otherwise skip the next block. (There isn't actually a "dangling else" problem here, since the else binds to the nearest if, which is the one in the macro.)
If you are interested in the sorts of things that can be done more-or-less safely with the C preprocessor, check out that library.
For some reasons I can't comment on the first answer...
Some of you showed macros with local variables, but nobody mentioned that you can't just use any name in a macro! It will bite the user some day! Why? Because the input arguments are substituted into your macro template. And in your macro examples you've use the probably most commonly used variabled name i.
For example when the following macro
#define FOO(X) do { int i; for (i = 0; i < (X); ++i) do_something(i); } while (0)
is used in the following function
void some_func(void) {
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
FOO(i);
}
the macro will not use the intended variable i, that is declared at the beginning of some_func, but the local variable, that is declared in the do ... while loop of the macro.
Thus, never use common variable names in a macro!
I don't think it was mentioned so consider this
while(i<100)
FOO(i++);
would be translated into
while(i<100)
do { f(i++); g(i++); } while (0)
notice how i++ is evaluated twice by the macro. This can lead to some interesting errors.
In many C/C++ macros I'm seeing the code of the macro wrapped in what seems like a meaningless do while loop. Here are examples.
#define FOO(X) do { f(X); g(X); } while (0)
#define FOO(X) if (1) { f(X); g(X); } else
I can't see what the do while is doing. Why not just write this without it?
#define FOO(X) f(X); g(X)
The do ... while and if ... else are there to make it so that a
semicolon after your macro always means the same thing. Let's say you
had something like your second macro.
#define BAR(X) f(x); g(x)
Now if you were to use BAR(X); in an if ... else statement, where the bodies of the if statement were not wrapped in curly brackets, you'd get a bad surprise.
if (corge)
BAR(corge);
else
gralt();
The above code would expand into
if (corge)
f(corge); g(corge);
else
gralt();
which is syntactically incorrect, as the else is no longer associated with the if. It doesn't help to wrap things in curly braces within the macro, because a semicolon after the braces is syntactically incorrect.
if (corge)
{f(corge); g(corge);};
else
gralt();
There are two ways of fixing the problem. The first is to use a comma to sequence statements within the macro without robbing it of its ability to act like an expression.
#define BAR(X) f(X), g(X)
The above version of bar BAR expands the above code into what follows, which is syntactically correct.
if (corge)
f(corge), g(corge);
else
gralt();
This doesn't work if instead of f(X) you have a more complicated body of code that needs to go in its own block, say for example to declare local variables. In the most general case the solution is to use something like do ... while to cause the macro to be a single statement that takes a semicolon without confusion.
#define BAR(X) do { \
int i = f(X); \
if (i > 4) g(i); \
} while (0)
You don't have to use do ... while, you could cook up something with if ... else as well, although when if ... else expands inside of an if ... else it leads to a "dangling else", which could make an existing dangling else problem even harder to find, as in the following code.
if (corge)
if (1) { f(corge); g(corge); } else;
else
gralt();
The point is to use up the semicolon in contexts where a dangling semicolon is erroneous. Of course, it could (and probably should) be argued at this point that it would be better to declare BAR as an actual function, not a macro.
In summary, the do ... while is there to work around the shortcomings of the C preprocessor. When those C style guides tell you to lay off the C preprocessor, this is the kind of thing they're worried about.
Macros are copy/pasted pieces of text the pre-processor will put in the genuine code; the macro's author hopes the replacement will produce valid code.
There are three good "tips" to succeed in that:
Help the macro behave like genuine code
Normal code is usually ended by a semi-colon. Should the user view code not needing one...
doSomething(1) ;
DO_SOMETHING_ELSE(2) // <== Hey? What's this?
doSomethingElseAgain(3) ;
This means the user expects the compiler to produce an error if the semi-colon is absent.
But the real real good reason is that at some time, the macro's author will perhaps need to replace the macro with a genuine function (perhaps inlined). So the macro should really behave like one.
So we should have a macro needing semi-colon.
Produce a valid code
As shown in jfm3's answer, sometimes the macro contains more than one instruction. And if the macro is used inside a if statement, this will be problematic:
if(bIsOk)
MY_MACRO(42) ;
This macro could be expanded as:
#define MY_MACRO(x) f(x) ; g(x)
if(bIsOk)
f(42) ; g(42) ; // was MY_MACRO(42) ;
The g function will be executed regardless of the value of bIsOk.
This means that we must have to add a scope to the macro:
#define MY_MACRO(x) { f(x) ; g(x) ; }
if(bIsOk)
{ f(42) ; g(42) ; } ; // was MY_MACRO(42) ;
Produce a valid code 2
If the macro is something like:
#define MY_MACRO(x) int i = x + 1 ; f(i) ;
We could have another problem in the following code:
void doSomething()
{
int i = 25 ;
MY_MACRO(32) ;
}
Because it would expand as:
void doSomething()
{
int i = 25 ;
int i = 32 + 1 ; f(i) ; ; // was MY_MACRO(32) ;
}
This code won't compile, of course. So, again, the solution is using a scope:
#define MY_MACRO(x) { int i = x + 1 ; f(i) ; }
void doSomething()
{
int i = 25 ;
{ int i = 32 + 1 ; f(i) ; } ; // was MY_MACRO(32) ;
}
The code behaves correctly again.
Combining semi-colon + scope effects?
There is one C/C++ idiom that produces this effect: The do/while loop:
do
{
// code
}
while(false) ;
The do/while can create a scope, thus encapsulating the macro's code, and needs a semi-colon in the end, thus expanding into code needing one.
The bonus?
The C++ compiler will optimize away the do/while loop, as the fact its post-condition is false is known at compile time. This means that a macro like:
#define MY_MACRO(x) \
do \
{ \
const int i = x + 1 ; \
f(i) ; g(i) ; \
} \
while(false)
void doSomething(bool bIsOk)
{
int i = 25 ;
if(bIsOk)
MY_MACRO(42) ;
// Etc.
}
will expand correctly as
void doSomething(bool bIsOk)
{
int i = 25 ;
if(bIsOk)
do
{
const int i = 42 + 1 ; // was MY_MACRO(42) ;
f(i) ; g(i) ;
}
while(false) ;
// Etc.
}
and is then compiled and optimized away as
void doSomething(bool bIsOk)
{
int i = 25 ;
if(bIsOk)
{
f(43) ; g(43) ;
}
// Etc.
}
#jfm3 - You have a nice answer to the question. You might also want to add that the macro idiom also prevents the possibly more dangerous (because there's no error) unintended behavior with simple 'if' statements:
#define FOO(x) f(x); g(x)
if (test) FOO( baz);
expands to:
if (test) f(baz); g(baz);
which is syntactically correct so there's no compiler error, but has the probably unintended consequence that g() will always be called.
The above answers explain the meaning of these constructs, but there is a significant difference between the two that was not mentioned. In fact, there is a reason to prefer the do ... while to the if ... else construct.
The problem of the if ... else construct is that it does not force you to put the semicolon. Like in this code:
FOO(1)
printf("abc");
Although we left out the semicolon (by mistake), the code will expand to
if (1) { f(X); g(X); } else
printf("abc");
and will silently compile (although some compilers may issue a warning for unreachable code). But the printf statement will never be executed.
do ... while construct does not have such problem, since the only valid token after the while(0) is a semicolon.
Explanation
do {} while (0) and if (1) {} else are to make sure that the macro is expanded to only 1 instruction. Otherwise:
if (something)
FOO(X);
would expand to:
if (something)
f(X); g(X);
And g(X) would be executed outside the if control statement. This is avoided when using do {} while (0) and if (1) {} else.
Better alternative
With a GNU statement expression (not a part of standard C), you have a better way than do {} while (0) and if (1) {} else to solve this, by simply using ({}):
#define FOO(X) ({f(X); g(X);})
And this syntax is compatible with return values (note that do {} while (0) isn't), as in:
return FOO("X");
While it is expected that compilers optimize away the do { ... } while(false); loops, there is another solution which would not require that construct. The solution is to use the comma operator:
#define FOO(X) (f(X),g(X))
or even more exotically:
#define FOO(X) g((f(X),(X)))
While this will work well with separate instructions, it will not work with cases where variables are constructed and used as part of the #define :
#define FOO(X) (int s=5,f((X)+s),g((X)+s))
With this one would be forced to use the do/while construct.
Jens Gustedt's P99 preprocessor library (yes, the fact that such a thing exists blew my mind too!) improves on the if(1) { ... } else construct in a small but significant way by defining the following:
#define P99_NOP ((void)0)
#define P99_PREFER(...) if (1) { __VA_ARGS__ } else
#define P99_BLOCK(...) P99_PREFER(__VA_ARGS__) P99_NOP
The rationale for this is that, unlike the do { ... } while(0) construct, break and continue still work inside the given block, but the ((void)0) creates a syntax error if the semicolon is omitted after the macro call, which would otherwise skip the next block. (There isn't actually a "dangling else" problem here, since the else binds to the nearest if, which is the one in the macro.)
If you are interested in the sorts of things that can be done more-or-less safely with the C preprocessor, check out that library.
For some reasons I can't comment on the first answer...
Some of you showed macros with local variables, but nobody mentioned that you can't just use any name in a macro! It will bite the user some day! Why? Because the input arguments are substituted into your macro template. And in your macro examples you've use the probably most commonly used variabled name i.
For example when the following macro
#define FOO(X) do { int i; for (i = 0; i < (X); ++i) do_something(i); } while (0)
is used in the following function
void some_func(void) {
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
FOO(i);
}
the macro will not use the intended variable i, that is declared at the beginning of some_func, but the local variable, that is declared in the do ... while loop of the macro.
Thus, never use common variable names in a macro!
I don't think it was mentioned so consider this
while(i<100)
FOO(i++);
would be translated into
while(i<100)
do { f(i++); g(i++); } while (0)
notice how i++ is evaluated twice by the macro. This can lead to some interesting errors.
Here is some C++ code I'm playing around with:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#define IN ,
#define FOREACH(x,y) for(unsigned int i=0;i<y.size();i++) { x=y[i];
#define ENDFOREACH }
using namespace std;
int main()
{
vector<int> ints;
ints.push_back(3);
ints.push_back(4);
ints.push_back(5);
ints.push_back(6);
FOREACH(int item IN ints)
cout << item;
ENDFOREACH
return 0;
}
However, I get an error:
macro "FOREACH" requires 2 arguments, but only 1 given
The code compiles if I change the IN to a comma. How can I get the IN to take the place of a comma?
Update: for those interested, here is the final version, which, if I do say so myself, is quite nice.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#define in ,
#define as ,
#define FOREACH_(x,y,z) \
y x; \
if(z.size()) x = z[0]; \
for(unsigned int i=0,item;i<z.size();i++,x=z[i])
#define foreach(x) FOREACH_(x)
using namespace std;
int main()
{
vector<int> ints;
ints.push_back(3);
ints.push_back(4);
ints.push_back(5);
ints.push_back(6);
foreach(item as int in ints)
{
cout << item << endl;
}
return 0;
}
Others have already explained why it doesn't compile as is.
In order to make it work you have to give that IN a chance to turn into a comma. For that you can introduce an extra level of "indirection" in your macro definition
#define IN ,
#define FOREACH_(x,y) for(unsigned int i=0;i<y.size();i++) { x=y[i];
#define FOREACH(x) FOREACH_(x)
#define ENDFOREACH }
In this case you'll have to use some substitute for comma (like your IN) and can no longer specify comma explicitly. I.e. now this
FOREACH(int item IN ints)
cout << item;
ENDFOREACH
compiles fine, while
FOREACH(int item, ints)
cout << item;
ENDFOREACH
does not.
The compiler doesn't expand the IN macro before it reads the arguments to FOREACH. In fact, I think this is intentional (so that you can pass a comma to a macro).
Unfortunately, you'll have to use FOREACH(int item, ints).
You could also #define IN (make it nothing) and then use FOREACH(int item, IN ints), which is not quite as nice, but is acceptable.
That said, you may just want to use STL or Boost for foreach, unless you specifically want to create your own.
Expansion for IN doesn't happen early enough in your example, but you can pass the expanded version to another macro:
#define FOREACH(x) DO_FOREACH(x)
#define DO_FOREACH(x,y) for( ... ) ...
#define IN ,
#define XFOREACH(x,y) for(unsigned int i=0;i<y.size();i++) { x=y[i];
#define FOREACH(x) XFOREACH(x)
#define ENDFOREACH }
As previous posters have noted, the preprocessor does not expand macros in the arglist before it splits it into argument. However, as long as the macro doesn't use # or ##, it expands macros in the args before substituting them into the macro body, so an extra indirection does the trick
Check out BOOST_FOREACH - it does what you want
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_35_0/doc/html/foreach.html
The preprocessor doesn't expand the IN to a comma until after it reads the arguments to FOREACH.
I'm pretty sure that the c++ preprocessor is one pass only, so you'll have to use:
FOREACH(int item, ints)
cout << item;
ENDFOREACH
In many C/C++ macros I'm seeing the code of the macro wrapped in what seems like a meaningless do while loop. Here are examples.
#define FOO(X) do { f(X); g(X); } while (0)
#define FOO(X) if (1) { f(X); g(X); } else
I can't see what the do while is doing. Why not just write this without it?
#define FOO(X) f(X); g(X)
The do ... while and if ... else are there to make it so that a
semicolon after your macro always means the same thing. Let's say you
had something like your second macro.
#define BAR(X) f(x); g(x)
Now if you were to use BAR(X); in an if ... else statement, where the bodies of the if statement were not wrapped in curly brackets, you'd get a bad surprise.
if (corge)
BAR(corge);
else
gralt();
The above code would expand into
if (corge)
f(corge); g(corge);
else
gralt();
which is syntactically incorrect, as the else is no longer associated with the if. It doesn't help to wrap things in curly braces within the macro, because a semicolon after the braces is syntactically incorrect.
if (corge)
{f(corge); g(corge);};
else
gralt();
There are two ways of fixing the problem. The first is to use a comma to sequence statements within the macro without robbing it of its ability to act like an expression.
#define BAR(X) f(X), g(X)
The above version of bar BAR expands the above code into what follows, which is syntactically correct.
if (corge)
f(corge), g(corge);
else
gralt();
This doesn't work if instead of f(X) you have a more complicated body of code that needs to go in its own block, say for example to declare local variables. In the most general case the solution is to use something like do ... while to cause the macro to be a single statement that takes a semicolon without confusion.
#define BAR(X) do { \
int i = f(X); \
if (i > 4) g(i); \
} while (0)
You don't have to use do ... while, you could cook up something with if ... else as well, although when if ... else expands inside of an if ... else it leads to a "dangling else", which could make an existing dangling else problem even harder to find, as in the following code.
if (corge)
if (1) { f(corge); g(corge); } else;
else
gralt();
The point is to use up the semicolon in contexts where a dangling semicolon is erroneous. Of course, it could (and probably should) be argued at this point that it would be better to declare BAR as an actual function, not a macro.
In summary, the do ... while is there to work around the shortcomings of the C preprocessor. When those C style guides tell you to lay off the C preprocessor, this is the kind of thing they're worried about.
Macros are copy/pasted pieces of text the pre-processor will put in the genuine code; the macro's author hopes the replacement will produce valid code.
There are three good "tips" to succeed in that:
Help the macro behave like genuine code
Normal code is usually ended by a semi-colon. Should the user view code not needing one...
doSomething(1) ;
DO_SOMETHING_ELSE(2) // <== Hey? What's this?
doSomethingElseAgain(3) ;
This means the user expects the compiler to produce an error if the semi-colon is absent.
But the real real good reason is that at some time, the macro's author will perhaps need to replace the macro with a genuine function (perhaps inlined). So the macro should really behave like one.
So we should have a macro needing semi-colon.
Produce a valid code
As shown in jfm3's answer, sometimes the macro contains more than one instruction. And if the macro is used inside a if statement, this will be problematic:
if(bIsOk)
MY_MACRO(42) ;
This macro could be expanded as:
#define MY_MACRO(x) f(x) ; g(x)
if(bIsOk)
f(42) ; g(42) ; // was MY_MACRO(42) ;
The g function will be executed regardless of the value of bIsOk.
This means that we must have to add a scope to the macro:
#define MY_MACRO(x) { f(x) ; g(x) ; }
if(bIsOk)
{ f(42) ; g(42) ; } ; // was MY_MACRO(42) ;
Produce a valid code 2
If the macro is something like:
#define MY_MACRO(x) int i = x + 1 ; f(i) ;
We could have another problem in the following code:
void doSomething()
{
int i = 25 ;
MY_MACRO(32) ;
}
Because it would expand as:
void doSomething()
{
int i = 25 ;
int i = 32 + 1 ; f(i) ; ; // was MY_MACRO(32) ;
}
This code won't compile, of course. So, again, the solution is using a scope:
#define MY_MACRO(x) { int i = x + 1 ; f(i) ; }
void doSomething()
{
int i = 25 ;
{ int i = 32 + 1 ; f(i) ; } ; // was MY_MACRO(32) ;
}
The code behaves correctly again.
Combining semi-colon + scope effects?
There is one C/C++ idiom that produces this effect: The do/while loop:
do
{
// code
}
while(false) ;
The do/while can create a scope, thus encapsulating the macro's code, and needs a semi-colon in the end, thus expanding into code needing one.
The bonus?
The C++ compiler will optimize away the do/while loop, as the fact its post-condition is false is known at compile time. This means that a macro like:
#define MY_MACRO(x) \
do \
{ \
const int i = x + 1 ; \
f(i) ; g(i) ; \
} \
while(false)
void doSomething(bool bIsOk)
{
int i = 25 ;
if(bIsOk)
MY_MACRO(42) ;
// Etc.
}
will expand correctly as
void doSomething(bool bIsOk)
{
int i = 25 ;
if(bIsOk)
do
{
const int i = 42 + 1 ; // was MY_MACRO(42) ;
f(i) ; g(i) ;
}
while(false) ;
// Etc.
}
and is then compiled and optimized away as
void doSomething(bool bIsOk)
{
int i = 25 ;
if(bIsOk)
{
f(43) ; g(43) ;
}
// Etc.
}
#jfm3 - You have a nice answer to the question. You might also want to add that the macro idiom also prevents the possibly more dangerous (because there's no error) unintended behavior with simple 'if' statements:
#define FOO(x) f(x); g(x)
if (test) FOO( baz);
expands to:
if (test) f(baz); g(baz);
which is syntactically correct so there's no compiler error, but has the probably unintended consequence that g() will always be called.
The above answers explain the meaning of these constructs, but there is a significant difference between the two that was not mentioned. In fact, there is a reason to prefer the do ... while to the if ... else construct.
The problem of the if ... else construct is that it does not force you to put the semicolon. Like in this code:
FOO(1)
printf("abc");
Although we left out the semicolon (by mistake), the code will expand to
if (1) { f(X); g(X); } else
printf("abc");
and will silently compile (although some compilers may issue a warning for unreachable code). But the printf statement will never be executed.
do ... while construct does not have such problem, since the only valid token after the while(0) is a semicolon.
Explanation
do {} while (0) and if (1) {} else are to make sure that the macro is expanded to only 1 instruction. Otherwise:
if (something)
FOO(X);
would expand to:
if (something)
f(X); g(X);
And g(X) would be executed outside the if control statement. This is avoided when using do {} while (0) and if (1) {} else.
Better alternative
With a GNU statement expression (not a part of standard C), you have a better way than do {} while (0) and if (1) {} else to solve this, by simply using ({}):
#define FOO(X) ({f(X); g(X);})
And this syntax is compatible with return values (note that do {} while (0) isn't), as in:
return FOO("X");
While it is expected that compilers optimize away the do { ... } while(false); loops, there is another solution which would not require that construct. The solution is to use the comma operator:
#define FOO(X) (f(X),g(X))
or even more exotically:
#define FOO(X) g((f(X),(X)))
While this will work well with separate instructions, it will not work with cases where variables are constructed and used as part of the #define :
#define FOO(X) (int s=5,f((X)+s),g((X)+s))
With this one would be forced to use the do/while construct.
Jens Gustedt's P99 preprocessor library (yes, the fact that such a thing exists blew my mind too!) improves on the if(1) { ... } else construct in a small but significant way by defining the following:
#define P99_NOP ((void)0)
#define P99_PREFER(...) if (1) { __VA_ARGS__ } else
#define P99_BLOCK(...) P99_PREFER(__VA_ARGS__) P99_NOP
The rationale for this is that, unlike the do { ... } while(0) construct, break and continue still work inside the given block, but the ((void)0) creates a syntax error if the semicolon is omitted after the macro call, which would otherwise skip the next block. (There isn't actually a "dangling else" problem here, since the else binds to the nearest if, which is the one in the macro.)
If you are interested in the sorts of things that can be done more-or-less safely with the C preprocessor, check out that library.
For some reasons I can't comment on the first answer...
Some of you showed macros with local variables, but nobody mentioned that you can't just use any name in a macro! It will bite the user some day! Why? Because the input arguments are substituted into your macro template. And in your macro examples you've use the probably most commonly used variabled name i.
For example when the following macro
#define FOO(X) do { int i; for (i = 0; i < (X); ++i) do_something(i); } while (0)
is used in the following function
void some_func(void) {
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
FOO(i);
}
the macro will not use the intended variable i, that is declared at the beginning of some_func, but the local variable, that is declared in the do ... while loop of the macro.
Thus, never use common variable names in a macro!
I don't think it was mentioned so consider this
while(i<100)
FOO(i++);
would be translated into
while(i<100)
do { f(i++); g(i++); } while (0)
notice how i++ is evaluated twice by the macro. This can lead to some interesting errors.