I have visual studio solution which contains various of C++ projects. For simplicity there are two projects. One for .lib and another for .exe. Both project use precompiled header stdafx.h. But precompiled header is shared between projects.
Recently somebody placed definition of variable inside stdafx.cpp and because it is shared between projects I got:
error LNK2005: "int x" (?x##3HA) already defined in stdafx.obj
So my question is: Is it ok to put definitions into precompiled header? (in cpp part from which is precompiled header created)
I would guess that precompiled header should contain only declarations of symbols and not definitions. Or am I wrong?
Typically you don't want to define a variable in any header.
When a header is included, it is effectively pasted into the including file before compilation starts. This means anything defined in the header will be repeated in every file including the header. This usually compiles just fine, but leaves the linker with the problem of figuring out which definition is the real definition.
If everyone is to share a single x, place
extern int x;
in a header and
int x;
in an appropriate cpp file.
If every includer is to have their own private x
static int x;
goes in the header, but personally I see this as an ugly dodge that you should try to work around.
As to whether it is legal to put stuff other than headers you want precompiled into in stdafx or not, I honestly don't know. Never done it. I do know that it's not how stdafx.h is intended to be used, you only want to put headers from libraries that will not be modified as part of the project in stdafx.h, so I wouldn't do it.
Recommended reading: Purpose of stdafx.h, What's the use for "stdafx.h" in Visual Studio?, and How to use stdafx.h properly?
Related
I was recently looking through the source code of a C++ application and saw that each class did not #include its needed components, but instead #include'd a "Precompiled.h" header. In this Precompiled header was an inclusion of almost every header in the application (not all of them, it was clear that the length and order of the list was deliberate). Essentially, this would mean that every class had an inclusion of every other class in the application.
Is this wise? Why or why not?
Usually if you write an application, you should only include header files which are really needed in cpp files. If you got a really big application, you should use forward declaration in the header and include necessary files in the cpp file. With that, changes in code only affects a minimum on cpp files, so the compiler had only to compile what really has changed.
The situation can totally flip, when it comes to libraries or code which does not change very often. The filename "Precompiled.h" is already a hint. The compiler can precompile the headers to a special object file, often called PCH file. With that, the compiler has not to resolve every include on every compile time. On heavy nested includes, this has high impact on compile speed, because instead of many files to load and parse, there is only one preparsed file. To archive that you have to declare one or more headers as a kind of center file for building a precompiled header. How you do that differs between different compilers.
For example Visual studio uses the header file "stdafx.h" as the center of the precompilation of header files. Because of that, only header files should include there which are not altered very often. Also the file had to be included first in every cpp file. That is because the compiler can not detect any more if a include file which is included before may have influence to the precompiled file. To avoid that, includes before the precompiled includes are not allowed.
Back to your question. Including every file in one header file to use it as precompiled header makes no sense at all, as it conteract the meaning of a precompiled header file.
It is a very bad idea.
For a .cpp file only include the minimum number of #include files.
Thereby when one of them changes the make (or moral equilivant) will not require the whole lot to be recompiled.
Saves lots of time during development.
PS Use forward declarations in preference to #include
I am starting some work using a third party library and when building it in Visual Studio 2010, I noticed I was receiving this linker warning many times (LNK4221). I looked at the sources used in creating the object files that were being linked and found that all of the implementation for these is located in the header files. Interestingly, I also noticed the project included corresponding .cpp files containing only a #include for the header with the implementation.
I am curious - what is the point of this and why would I want to use this technique? If the .cpp files aren't adding any value to the project, why shouldn't I just remove them to get rid of the linker warnings?
I tried searching for similar questions, but didn't find anything of interest. If you know of any, please link them.
Was the single #included file stdafx.h? I. That case, you're dealing with precompiled headers. The normal setup is for one .cpp file having "generate precompiled headers" compiler option, and the rest of the .cpp files in your project having "use pch".
I'm using this to make sure, that the header is at least in one file included at the first position. By doing so, I make sure that the header is compilable on it's own.
To convence the linker to not issue a warning, one could use an external variable with a very large variable:
int variable_with_a_name_that_includes_the_file_name_somehow = 42;
I have been working on a program in windows VC++ 2008. I started by having all of my code in .cpp files (just to get everything working), and now breaking things into .h, and .cpp files. when I compile I get a mountain of LNK2005 errors stating that:
Object.obj : error LNK2005: "__thiscall thing::thing(args)" already defined in otherObject.obj
while I was making the original program I kept getting errors of undeclared identifier, and so I gave a include directive to satisfy that. now when I am breaking everything up into separate .cpp, and .h files I get all of this. which place do I start looking (Object, otherObject, or thing), or somewhere else.
Basically you have definition for thing::thing(args) in two Translation Units(TU), which violates the One Definition Rule(ODR) and hence the error.
The linker exactly tells you which TU's are involved: otherObject.obj and Object.obj.
Start looking in to otherObject.cpp and Object.cpp and the headers which are included in these two cpp files. It is most likely that you have defined your constructor thing::thing(args) in header file and including that header file in both these cpp files results in multiple definitions.
Suggested Solution:
You cannot define the constructor in header file, You need to add it to your cpp file along with other member functions of the class. If you must add the definition of constructor to header you should mark it inline, given that You have not shown your code I don't see any reason to apply the second approach.
Given the information in your question, I bet that the method is defined in a header file but not marked inline. This then causes duplicate symbol linker errors. Try marking hte method inline or moving the definition to a source (.C) file.
Is there some preferred way to organize ones include directives?
Is it better to include the files you need in the .cpp file instead of the .h file? Are the translation units affected somehow?
How about if I need it in both the .h file and .cpp file, should I just include it in the .h file? Will it matter?
Is it a good practice to keep the already defined files in a precompiled header (stdafx.h), for instance std and third party libraries? How about my own files, should I include them in a stdafx.h file along the way as I create them?
// myClass.h
#include <string>
// ^-------- should I include it here? --------
class myClass{
myClass();
~myClass();
int calculation()
};
// myClass.cpp
#include "myClass.h"
#include <string>
// ^-------- or maybe here? --------
[..]
int myClass::calculation(){
std::string someString = "Hello World";
return someString.length();
}
// stdafx.h
#include <string.h>
// ^--------- or perhaps here, and then include stdafx.h everywhere? -------
You should have them at the top of the file, all in one place. This is what everyone expects. Also, it is useful to have them grouped, e.g. first all standard headers, then 3rd-party headers (grouped by library), then your own headers. Keep this order consistent throughout the project. It makes it easier to understand dependencies. As #James Kanze points out, it is also useful to put the header that declares the content first. This way you make sure that it works if included first (meaning it does no depend on any includes that it does not include itself).
Keep the scope as small as possible, so that a change in the header affects the least number of translation-units. This means, whenever possible include it in the cpp-file only. As #Pedro d'Aquino commented, you can reduce the number of includes in a header by using forward declarations whenever possible (basically whenever you only use references or pointers to a given type).
Both - explicit is better than implicit.
After some reading, I believe you should only include headers in the PCH if you are confident that they do not change anymore. This goes for all standard headers as well as (probably) third party libraries. For your own libraries, you be the judge.
This article on Header file include patterns should be helpful for you.
Is there some preferred way to organize ones include directives?
Yes, you can find them in the above article.
Is it better to include the files you need in the .cpp file instead of
the .h file? Are the translation units
affected somehow?
Yes, it is better to have them in .cpp. Even, if a defined type is required in definition of another type, you can use forward declaration.
How about if I need it in both the .h file and .cpp file, should I just
include it in the .h file? Will it
matter?
Only in .h file, but it is suggested to forward declare in header files, and include in .cpp files.
Is it a good practice to keep the already defined files in a precompiled
header (stdafx.h), for instance std
and third party libraries? How about
my own files, should I include them in
a stdafx.h file along the way as I
create them?
I personally have not used precompiled headers, but there has been a discussion on them on Stackoverflow earlier:
Precompiled Headers? Do we really need them
Is there some preferred way to organize ones include directives?
No common conventions. Some suggest alphabet-sorting them, I personally dislike it and prefer keeping them logically grouped.
Is it better to include the files you need in the .cpp file instead of the .h file?
In general, yes. It reduces the count of times that the compiler needs to open and read the header file just to see the include guards there. That may reduce overall compilation time.
Sometimes it's also recommended to forward-declare as much classes as possible in the headers and actually include them only in .cpp's, for the same reason. The "Qt people" do so, for example.
Are the translation units affected somehow?
In semantic sense, no.
How about if I need it in both the .h file and .cpp file, should I just include it in the .h file? Will it matter?
Just include it in the header.
Is it a good practice to keep the already defined files in a precompiled header (stdafx.h), for instance std and third party libraries? How about my own files, should I include them in a stdafx.h file along the way as I create them?
Precompiled headers can significantly reduce compilation times. For example: one of my projects that includes boost::spirit::qi compiles in 20 secs with PCH on, and 80 secs — without. In general, if you use some heavily template-stuffed library like boost, you'd want to utilise the advantage of PCH.
As for the question in your code sample: since you don't use std::string in the header, it's better to include it in the .cpp file. It's alright to #include <string> in stdafx.h too — but that will just add a little bit of complexity to your project and you'll hardly notice any compilation speed-up.
(4) I wouldn't recommend to include any additional files into stdafx.h. or similar "include_first.h" files. Direct including into cpp or particular h files allow you to express dependencies of your code explicitly and exclude redundant dependencies. It is especialy helpful when you decide to decompose monolithic code into a few libs or dll's. Personally, I use files like "include_first.h" (stdafx.h) for configuration purpose only (this file contains only macro definitions for current application configuration).
It is possible to provide precompiled headers for your own files by marking another file to stop precompilation instead of stdafx.h (for instance, you can use special empty file named like "stop_pch.h").
Note, precompiled headers may not work properly for some kinds of sofisticated usage of the preprocessor (particulary, for some technics used in BOOST_PP_* )
From the performance point of view:
Changing any of the headers included from stdafx.h will trigger a new precompilation, so it depends on how "frozen" the code is. External libraries are typical candidates for stdafx.h inclusion, but you can certainly include your own libraries as well - it's a tradeoff based on how often you expect to change them.
Also, with the Microsoft compiler you can put this at the top of each header file:
#pragma once
This allows the compiler to fully skip that file after the first occurrence, saving I/O operations. The traditional ifndef/define/endif pattern requires opening and parsing the file every time it's included, which of course takes some time. It can certainly accumulate and get noticeable!
(Make sure to leave the traditional guards in there, for portability.)
It might be important to notice that the order of classes in Translation Unit need to be correct or some c++ features are just disabled and results in a compile-time error.
Edit: Adding examples:
class A { };
class B { A a; }; // order of classes need to be correct
I'm using MSVC++ 6 to build a very large project. Some of the source files in this project are shared with a small utility that we use for maintaining the application. Previously, this small utility required linking against many libs from the main app and also required the main app's DLLs at runtime. I was tasked with removing these dependencies, which sounded pretty simple... unfortunately, the precompiled headers used in the main app are causing me a lot of trouble.
I first reworked all the files in the utility to explicitly include everything they need and then I removed the #include directives for the PCH (this removed 95% of the unnecessary dependencies for the utility). This works great for compiling the utility. Now, however, compiling the main app gives me errors about missing precompiled header directives. I thought "great, I'll just conditionally include the PCH". This does not seem to work... I get "unexpected #endif", as mentioned here. My next thought was to turn off PCH in the main app for the three source files that are shared between the utilty and the main app. This compiles successfully, but I get a bunch of errors that look like this during linking:
tls7d.lib(tls707d.dll) : error LNK2005: "public: unsigned int __thiscall RWCString::length(void)const " (?length#RWCString##QBEIXZ) already defined in stripledescypher.obj
AFAICT, all of the multiply defined symbols are ones that I explicitly include in the shared files to avoid the need for the PCH. My hunch is that since I'm linking those 3 files into the same DLL as the PCH .cpp file, they're compiled in multiple places. Is there any way out of this mess? I'll try just about anything...
When the compiler finds a definition of a symbol X when processing a compilation unit, it will create a hint for the linker: X is in here!
The compilation of two source files, both #includeing a header with a definition (i.e. not a mere declaration) will result in two object files defining the same symbol. The linker will find a symbol multiply defined.
So it appears that your stripledescypher object file includes a definition of the WCString::lenght()const method. This may be due to the function body being defined in the class' header or something the like.