How to get the macro name inside a macro?
Say we have:
#include <iostream>
using std::cout;
using std::endl;
#define MACRO() \
cout << __MACRO_NAME__ << endl
int main () {
MACRO();
return 0;
}
Expected output:
MACRO
Did little bit of research and I don't think that is doable in c++.
But you could use this:
#define MACRO2(x) cout << #x << endl
#define MACRO MACRO2(MACRO)
In this you can use MACRO2 to do the task of MACRO and you can also access name of MACRO as an argument x.
Related
I would like to define a macro to concat __func__ (or __FUNCTION__) with __LINE__:
The following works fine:
// macro_test.cc
#include <iostream>
#define STR2(X) #X
#define STR(X) STR2(X)
#define FILE_LOCATION __FILE__ ":" STR(__LINE__) " "
int main() {
std::cout << FILE_LOCATION << "is <file_name>:<line_number>" << std::endl;
return 0;
}
And here is the output
$ ./a.out
macro_test.cc:8 is <file_name>:<line_number>
However the following gives a compilation error (I just replaced __FILE__ with __func__):
// macro_test.cc
#include <iostream>
#define STR2(X) #X
#define STR(X) STR2(X)
#define FUNC_LOCATION __func__ ":" STR(__LINE__) " "
int main() {
std::cout << FUNC_LOCATION << "is <function_name>:<line_number>" << std::endl;
return 0;
}
~$ gcc macro_test.cc
macro_test.cc: In function ‘int main()’:
macro_test.cc:5:32: error: expected ‘;’ before string constant
#define FUNC_LOCATION __func__ ":" STR(__LINE__) " "
^
macro_test.cc:8:16: note: in expansion of macro ‘FUNC_LOCATION’
std::cout << FUNC_LOCATION << "is <function_name>:<line_number>" << std::endl;
Does anyone know the reason for this and how can I achieve this?
I am using gcc 5.4.0 on Linux (Ubuntu 18.04).
gives a compilation error [...] anyone know the reason for this
__func__ is a variable:
static const char __func__[] = "function-name";
It is not to a (string) literal (to which for example __FILE__ "expands".)
(docs are here: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Function-Names.html)
Instead of trying to stitch together incompatible types into a single string, you could have an immediately invoked function expression (borrowing from JavaScript terminology) as the macro implementation.
Since it is being immediately executed, I pass in the two preprocessor identifiers as parameters.
They shouldn't be baked into the body of the lambda because then the __func__ will reflect the lambda rather than the routine invoking the lambda.
#include <sstream>
#define FUNC_LOCATION \
[](auto fn, auto ln) { \
std::stringstream ss;
ss << fn << ":" << ln << " "; \
return ss.str(); \
}(__func__, __LINE__)
int main() {
std::cout << FILE_LOCATION << "is <file_name>:<line_number>" << std::endl;
return 0;
}
The following preprocessor-based identifier-to-string lookup table:
#include <iostream>
// included generated file
#define KEY_a valueA
#define KEY_b valueB
///////
#define LOOKUP_(_key_) KEY_ ## _key_
#define QUOTE_(_str_) #_str_
#define EXPAND_AND_QUOTE_(_str_) QUOTE_(_str_)
#define LOOKUP(_key_) EXPAND_AND_QUOTE_(LOOKUP_(_key_))
int main() {
std::cout << LOOKUP(a) << std::endl;
std::cout << LOOKUP(b) << std::endl;
std::cout << LOOKUP(c) << std::endl;
}
Output:
valueA
valueB
KEY_c
The first #defines come from an #included header generated by an external script before the compilation.
The LOOKUP macro correctly handles existing key in the table, and substitutes the given value as string literal.
But for non-existing keys, it substitutes the key as string literal.
Is there a way to instead make it substitute a given constant for non-existing keys, without causing a compile-time error, and all within the preprocessing stage?
So for example, the LOOKUP(c) and LOOKUP(whatever) should all be substituted to "undefined", without c or whatever occuring in the included generated file.
The names of the keys should not be outputted to the compiled binary, so ideally they should never be seen by the compiler.
Here's a simple, if hacky, solution. By making the definition of KEY_x a list of two elements (the first of which will be ignored), it permits adding a default value:
#include <iostream>
// included generated file
#define KEY_a _,valueA
#define KEY_b _,valueB
///////
#define LOOKUP_(key) KEY_ ## key
#define QUOTE_(_,str,...) #str
#define EXPAND_AND_QUOTE_(...) QUOTE_(__VA_ARGS__)
#define LOOKUP(key) EXPAND_AND_QUOTE_(LOOKUP_(key),undefined)
int main() {
std::cout << LOOKUP(a) << std::endl;
std::cout << LOOKUP(b) << std::endl;
std::cout << LOOKUP(c) << std::endl;
}
Test on coliru
This question already has answers here:
How do I temporarily disable a macro expansion in C/C++?
(6 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
The goal here is to simply get a, b, c out instead of their actual values. The setup is "simple enough":
#include <boost/preprocessor/seq/for_each_i.hpp>
#include <boost/preprocessor/seq/for_each.hpp>
#include <boost/preprocessor/stringize.hpp>
#include <iostream>
// Define "invalid" sequence first
#define SEQ (a)(b)(c)
// Try to create "final" value with `std::string("elem")`
// Brought in for explicit `std::string`, but no dice
#define MAKE_XSTRING(x) MAKE_STRING(x)
#define MAKE_STRING(x) std::string(#x)
// oh, the humanity! vvvvvvvvvvvv or BOOST_PP_STRINGIZE
#define HUMANIZE(r, data, elem) (MAKE_XSTRING(elem))
#define SEQ_HUMAN BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH(HUMANIZE,,SEQ)
So what I'm expecting at this point is what I have: a new sequence with (std::string("a")) etc:
// confirmation: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
// warning: Humans: (std::string("a")) (std::string("b")) (std::string("c"))
#pragma message "Humans: " BOOST_PP_STRINGIZE(SEQ_HUMAN)
Thinking I'm so very clever and have gotten my values sorted out in some explicit strings, now I define the actual values for what the "real" code needs.
// Now that we have the "final" values, actually define the real values
// in real code, it's some lengthy nested namespaces (inconvenient to type)
#define a 123
#define b 456
#define c 789
And at long last, lets print them to make sure they aren't expanded:
// Let there be printing!
#define GOTTA_PRINT_EM_ALL(r,data,i,elem) << ((i)+1) << ". " << elem << std::endl
int main(int argc, const char **argv) {
std::cout << "Humans: " << std::endl
BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(GOTTA_PRINT_EM_ALL,,SEQ_HUMAN);
}
But it seems the aliens did indeed take over:
Humans:
1. 123
2. 456
3. 789
Given that they're supposed to be std::string("a")...how the heck are the real values getting back in there?! I thought maybe the ("a") from the std::string constructor was creating issues, but it doesn't seem so (BOOST_PP_STRINGIZE results in same behavior). Any suggestions?
The macro indeed expands into code tokens:
test.cpp|24 col 1| note: #pragma message: Humans: (std::string("123")) (std::string("456")) (std::string("789"))
Now when you insert the code tokens into your GOTTA_PRINT_EM_ALL macro, you get
<< ((0)+1) << ". " << std::string(\"123\") << std::endl << ((1)+1) << ". " << std::string(\"456\") << std::endl << ((2)+1) << ". << std::string(\"789\")" << std::endl
Completely expectedly printing
Humans:
1. 123
2. 456
3. 789
To get the "code tokens" you need to stringize them as well:
// Let there be printing!
#define GOTTA_PRINT_EM_ALL(r,data,i,elem) << ((i)+1) << ". " << BOOST_PP_STRINGIZE(elem) << std::endl
Printing
Humans:
1. std::string("123")
2. std::string("456")
3. std::string("789")
See it Live On Coliru
#include <boost/preprocessor/seq/for_each_i.hpp>
#include <boost/preprocessor/seq/for_each.hpp>
#include <boost/preprocessor/stringize.hpp>
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#define a 123
#define b 456
#define c 789
#define SEQ (a)(b)(c)
// Try to create "final" value with `std::string("elem")`
// Brought in for explicit `std::string`, but no dice
#define MAKE_STRING(x) std::string(#x)
#define MAKE_XSTRING(x) MAKE_STRING(x)
#define HUMANIZE(r, data, elem) (MAKE_XSTRING(elem))
#define SEQ_HUMAN BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH(HUMANIZE,,SEQ)
// Let there be printing!
#define GOTTA_PRINT_EM_ALL(r,data,i,elem) << ((i)+1) << ". " << BOOST_PP_STRINGIZE(elem) << std::endl
int main() {
std::cout << "Humans: " << std::endl
BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(GOTTA_PRINT_EM_ALL,,SEQ_HUMAN);
}
Related to my question Alternative to expanding templates in a switch statement trying to get Boost.Preprocessor to do a nested interation over a sequence.
#include <boost/preprocessor.hpp>
#include <iostream>
#define LASERTYPE_VALUES (EXCIMER)(GAS)(METALVAPOR)(SOLIDSTATE)(DYE)(SEMICONDUCTOR)(FREEELECTRON)(OTHER)
enum LaserType
{
BOOST_PP_SEQ_ENUM(LASERTYPE_VALUES)
};
#define LT_NESTED(maR, maToplevelType, maNestedType) \
std::cout << "Test nested: first=" << LaserType(maToplevelType) << " second=" << LaserType(maNestedType) << " \n";
#define LT_TOPLEVEL(maR, maUnused, maType) \
std::cout << "Test toplevel: " << LaserType(maType) << " \n"; \
BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_R(maR, LT_NESTED, maType, LASERTYPE_VALUES);
int main() {
BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH(LT_TOPLEVEL, %%, LASERTYPE_VALUES);
}
This leads to this error:
test-pp.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
test-pp.cpp:15:32: error: ‘LT_NESTED’ was not declared in this scope
BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_R(maR, LT_NESTED, maType, LASERTYPE_VALUES);
^
/usr/include/boost/preprocessor/seq/for_each.hpp:49:57: note: in expansion of macro ‘LT_TOPLEVEL’
# define BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_M_I(r, macro, data, seq) macro(r, data, BOOST_PP_SEQ_HEAD(seq))
^
test-pp.cpp:4:39: error: ‘EXCIMER’ cannot be used as a function
#define LASERTYPE_VALUES (EXCIMER)(GAS)(METALVAPOR)(SOLIDSTATE)(DYE)(SEMICONDUCTOR)(FREEELECTRON)(OTHER)
^
test-pp.cpp:15:51: note: in expansion of macro ‘LASERTYPE_VALUES’
BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_R(maR, LT_NESTED, maType, LASERTYPE_VALUES);
Reordering the macros doesn't help. There's something fundamentally wrong here, and it's likely trivial, but I haven't yet figured out how to do this and haven't seen any decent examples. If anyone had any suggestions, I'd be very interested to know what I'm doing wrong here.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/boost-list/jhN4NE9VAtg indicates that I might be running into reentrancy problems. It looks like I might be able to use BOOST_PP_FOR directly for the top level macro perhaps. If anyone had an example of that, it would be really useful.
I found a workaround in https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/boost-devel-archive/Tbcs4nn4sPE which gives this solution:
#include <boost/preprocessor.hpp>
#include <iostream>
#define LASERTYPE_VALUES (EXCIMER)(GAS)(METALVAPOR)(SOLIDSTATE)(DYE)(SEMICONDUCTOR)(FREEELECTRON)(OTHER)
enum LaserType
{
BOOST_PP_SEQ_ENUM(LASERTYPE_VALUES)
};
#define PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_R_ID() BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_R
#define PP_DEFER(x) x BOOST_PP_EMPTY()
#define LT_NESTED(maR, maToplevelType, maNestedType) \
std::cout << "Test nested: first=" << LaserType(maToplevelType) << " second=" << LaserType(maNestedType) << " \n";
#define LT_TOPLEVEL(maR, maUnused, maType) \
std::cout << "Test toplevel: " << LaserType(maType) << " \n"; \
PP_DEFER(PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_R_ID)()(maR, LT_NESTED, maType, LASERTYPE_VALUES);
int main() {
BOOST_PP_EXPAND(BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH(LT_TOPLEVEL, %%, LASERTYPE_VALUES));
}
It's a bit esoteric but it compiles and functions as required.
There is one function defined in two different ways, one using #define and other using a function. But for the output I am getting different values.
The output is coming out to be 3 -1.
I want to know why using F(x,y) results in different values.
#include<iostream>
#define F(x,y) y-x
using namespace std;
int F2(int x,int y)
{
return y-x;
}
int main()
{
int x=1,y=2, h=2;
cout << F(x+h,y) << " " << F2(x+h,y) << endl;
return 0;
}
First off, you didn't #define a function but a macro. Macros do straight text replacement so the output line is equivalent to:
cout << y-x+h << " " << F2(x+h,y) << endl;
Can you spot the error now?
Classic problem using #define, and one of the main reasons why macros are discouraged. Keep in mind that a macro is little more than a literal substitution, and consider what it expands to:
cout << y-x+h << " " << F2(x+h,y) << endl;
And y-x+h is something very different from y-(x+h).
Always parenthesize uses of macro arguments:
#define F(x,y) ((y)-(x))
#define is a macro directive, not a function. It is just replacing it's occurrences by the macro body. If you do so, you will see that F(x+h,y) is replaced by y-x+h, which is obviously not what you want. The rule for macros is to take all of the parameters and subexpressions into brackes like this:
#define F(x,y) ((y)-(x))
in order to get the correct results.
This way F(x+h,y) will be replaced by ((y)-(x+h)), which is correct