I'm trying to make some kind of a simple system that calculates the number of builds, including this info in .rc file (for windows) and met the problem. Here it is:
#define QUOTE(s) #s
#define A 0,0,0,1
#define A_STR QUOTE(A)
Expanding of A_STR: "A" but not "0,0,0,1" as I expected.
Well, I need A_STR to be a string representation of A (that's what windres expects to see in .rc file), but I can't find the way to do this.
I've already tried smth like #define A_STR #A but it simply expands to #0,0,0,1.
I also tried using qmake like this: DEFINES *= A_STR="<here-is-how-I-get-version>" but gcc gets it without quotes and I've got the same problem.
When a C preprocessor macro is expanded, its parameters are expanded to their literal arguments, so s would be expanded to A when your QUOTE(s) taking argument A is expanded. Normally, after this expansion is complete, the expanded text is then scanned again to expand any macros embedded therein, so this would cause the A to expand to 0,0,0,1. However, when the stringification operator # is used to stringify the following text, that stringification happens first, so the following text never gets a chance to be expanded, thus you get stringified "A" as the final expansion of A_STR.
This problem is normally solved by introducing a second level of indirection, which gives the initial macro argument a second chance to expand:
#define QUOTE2(A) #A
#define QUOTE(A) QUOTE2(A)
However, this would not actually work for your case, because in the first-level expansion the A would expand to 0,0,0,1, which would be taken as four arguments to QUOTE2(), and thus would be rejected as an invalid macro call.
You can solve this with variadic macro arguments and __VA_ARGS__:
#define QUOTE2(...) #__VA_ARGS__
#define QUOTE(...) QUOTE2(__VA_ARGS__)
Related
I want to be able to generate these options from a macro:
if(void* temp = func(arg)){ foo(temp, variable);return; }
if(void* temp = func2(arg)){ foo(temp, variable2);return; }
if(void* temp = func3(arg)){ foo(temp, variable3);return; }
And so on, but as you can see 1 is the only special case.
I want to write a macro which takes in a number as a parameter and generates a line this code, potentially with numbers far greater than 3. Unfortunately this requires building in the special case if the user passed a 1 and exercising the general case if they passed any other number. Is there a way to do this?
If you really want to use the CPP for this, it's easy enough. An indirect GLUE and an indirect SECOND macro are core tools that you could use:
#define GLUE(A,B) GLUE_I(A,B)
#define GLUE_I(A,B) A##B
#define SECOND(...) SECOND_I(__VA_ARGS__,,)
#define SECOND_I(_,X,...) X
The indirect SECOND allows you to pattern match in the preprocessor. The way that works is that you build a first token, which is normally just a throwaway. But since expansion is indirect, if that first token you build is a macro, it will expand first (namely, as part of argument substitution for the variadic). If that expansion contains a comma, it can shift in a "new" second argument right before the indirection picks the second one. You can use that to build your special cases.
Here's a cpp pattern matcher using this construct that returns its argument unless it is 1, in which case it expands to no tokens:
#define NOT_ONE(N) SECOND(GLUE(TEST_IF_1_IS_,N),N)
#define TEST_IF_1_IS_1 ,
Using that, your macro might be:
#define DISPATCH_CASE(N) \
if(void* temp = GLUE(func,NOT_ONE(N))){ \
foo(temp, GLUE(variable,NOT_ONE(N))); \
return;
}
Demo (coliru)
Update: Visual Studio version
But I'm on Visual Studio, and I can't make it work. I think the problem is the __VA_ARGS__ expansion works differently on Visual Studio
For VS, I've found another level of indirection of a particular sort (one that separates the macro from its arguments so the arg list can evaluate in a simple (...) context before it's applied) helps it figure out that commas delimit arguments. Typically I would repeat the same pattern in multiple macros to avoid blue paint.
Here, that translates to the slightly uglier:
#define GLUE(A,B) GLUE_C(GLUE_I,(A,B))
#define GLUE_I(A,B) A##B
#define GLUE_C(A,B) A B
#define SECOND(...) SECOND_C(SECOND_I,(__VA_ARGS__,,))
#define SECOND_I(_,X,...) X
#define SECOND_C(A,B) A B
Demo (goldbolt)
Extending on this question and this question , is it possible to have a multiline string literal using either the preprocessor method shown or C++ multiline string literals that contain the values of a preprocessor symbol. For example:
#define SOME_CONSTANT 64
#define QUOTE(...) #__VA_ARGS__
const char * aString = QUOTE(
{
"key":"fred",
"value":"SOME_CONSTANT"
}
);
Ideally I want "SOME_CONSTANT" to be replaced with "64".
I have tried using all the tricks in my limited skill set including stringizing and have had no luck.
Any ideas?
You have two problems. The first is that preprocessor tokens inside quotes (i.e. string literals) aren't substituted. The second is that you must defer the actual stringification until all preprocessing tokens have been replaced. The stringification must be the very last macro that the preprocessor deals with.
Token substitution happens iterativly. The preprocessor deals with the substitution, and then goes back to see if there is anything left to substitute in the sequence it just replaced. We need to use it to our advantage. If we have an hypothetical TO_STRING macro, we need the very next iteration to substitute all preprocessing tokens, and only the one after that to produce a call to the "real" stringification. Fortunately, it's fairly simple to write:
#define TO_STRING(...) DEFER(TO_STRING_)(__VA_ARGS__)
#define DEFER(x) x
#define TO_STRING_(...) #__VA_ARGS__
#define SOME_CONSTANT 64
#define QUOTE(...) TO_STRING(__VA_ARGS__)
const char * aString = QUOTE({
"key":"fred",
"value": TO_STRING(SOME_CONSTANT)
});
Live example
We need the DEFER macro because the preprocessor won't substitute inside something that it recognizes as an argument to another macro. The trick here, is that the x in DEFER(TO_STRING_)(x) is not an argument to a macro. So it's substituted in the same go as DEFER(TO_STRING_). And what we get as a result is TO_STRING_(substituted_x). That becomes a macro invocation in the next iteration. So the preprocessor will perform the substitution dictated by TO_STRING_, on the previously substituted x.
How should we interpret the following macro definition using the C++ standard? Notice the main issue is that replacement-list for AA contains embedded comma (for, S)
#define AA for, S //<---note the embedded comma
#define VALUE_TO_STRING(x) ^x!
#define VALUE(x) VALUE_TO_STRING(x)
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
VALUE(AA)
return 0;
}
I've done a test with VC++2010 and the final result of the above looks like the following without any error but I've problem interpreting the steps that it took to come up with the result using C++03 (or C++11) standard:
int wmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
^for, S!
return 0;
}
I've done some step by step tests with VC++2010. First I commented out the 2nd macro to see what was happening in the first step:
#define AA for, S
//#define VALUE_TO_STRING(x) ^x!
#define VALUE(x) VALUE_TO_STRING(x)
The macro replacement is straight forward and yielded a sequence that looks like another function-like macro having TWO arguments:
int wmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
VALUE_TO_STRING(for, S)
return 0;
}
According to [cpp.rescan] the next step is to re-scan this for more macro names. The question here is should this new macro be interpreted as a function-like macro with 2 arguments or 1 argument "for, S".
The normal interpretation is to consider VALUE_TO_STRING() is given 2 arguments which is invalid and hence a preprocessor error is resulted. But how come the VC++ came up with a result without any error? Obviously, the second step VC++ took was to consider the for, S as 1 single argument which doesn't make sense and isn't defined by the C++ standard.
I've done a test with VC++2010...
MS's preprocessor was never made standard. They phrase it this odd way:
C99 __func__ and Preprocessor Rules ... For C99 preprocessor rules, "Partial" is listed because variadic macros are supported.
In other words, "we support variadic macros; therefore we qualify as partially compliant". AFAIK standard compliance for the preprocessor is considered very low priority by the MS team. So I wouldn't tend to use VC or VC++ as a model of the standard preprocessor. gcc's a better model of the standard preprocessor here.
Since this is about the preprocessor I'm going to focus the story on just this snippet:
#define AA for, S
#define VALUE_TO_STRING(x) ^x!
#define VALUE(x) VALUE_TO_STRING(x)
VALUE(AA)
I'll be referencing ISO-14882 2011 here, which uses different numbers than 1998/2003. Using those numbers, here's what happens starting at the expansion step, step by step... except for steps not relevant here which I'll skip.
The preprocessor sees VALUE(AA), which is a function-like invocation of a previously defined function-like macro. So the first thing it does is argument identification, referencing 16.3 paragraph 4:
[if not variadic] the number of arguments (including those arguments consisting of no preprocessing tokens) in an invocation of a function-like macro shall equal the number of parameters in the macro definition
...and a portion of 16.3.1 paragraph 1:
After the arguments for the invocation of a function-like macro have been identified,
At this step, the preprocessor identifies that there is indeed one argument, that the macro was defined with one argument, and that the parameter x matches the invocation argument AA. So far, argument matching and x is AA is all that happened.
Then we get to the next step, which is argument expansion. With respect to this step, the only thing about the replacement list that really matters is where the parameters are in it, and whether or not the parameters are part of stringification (# x) or pasting (x ## ... or ... ## x). If there are arguments in the replacement list that are neither, then those arguments are expanded (stringified or pasted versions of the arguments don't count during this step). This expansion happens first, before anything else interesting goes on in the invocation, and it occurs just as if the preprocessor were only expanding the invocation parameter.
In this case, the replacement list is VALUE_TO_STRING(x). Again, VALUE_TO_STRING might be a function-like macro, but since we're doing argument expansion right now we really don't care. The only thing we care about is that x is there, and it's not being stringified or pasted. x is being invoked with AA, so the preprocessor evaluates AA as if AA were on a line instead of VALUE(AA). AA is an object-like macro that expands to for, S. So the replacement list transforms into VALUE_TO_STRING(for, S).
This is the rest of 16.3.1 paragraph 1 in action:
A parameter in the replacement list, unless [stringified or pasted] is replaced by the corresponding argument after all macros contained therein have been expanded [...] as if they formed the rest of the preprocessing file
So far so good. But now we reach the next part, in 16.3.4:
After all parameters in the replacement list have been substituted and [stuff not happening here] the resulting preprocessing token sequence
is rescanned, along with all subsequent preprocessing tokens of the source file, for more macro names to replace.
This part evaluates VALUE_TO_STRING(for, S), as if that were the preprocessing token set (except that it also temporarily forgets that VALUE is a macro per 16.3.4p2, but that doesn't come into play here). That evaluation recognizes VALUE_TO_STRING as a function-like macro, being invoked like one, so argument identification begins again. Only here, VALUE_TO_STRING was defined to take one argument, but is invoked with two. That fails 16.3 p 4.
I think the answer is in order of expanding.
Your simulation of preprocessor expanding, i.e. your choice of which macro to expand first, does in my opinion not match what the preprocessor does.
I, acting as a preprocessor (according to standard I believed at first; but a comment contradicts), would expand your code in this order:
VALUE(AA)
VALUE_TO_STRING(AA)
^AA!
^for, S!
This matches the result of the preprocessor for the original code.
Note that by this order it never sees the code VALUE_TO_STRING(for, S), the closest it gets is VALUE_TO_STRING(AA). That code does not cause the question concerning the number of arguments.
I did not quote anything from the standard, I think your quotes are sufficient.
As mentioned in a comment below, my answer is now an attempt how the result could be explained, without assuming conforming preprocessor. Any answer explaining with conforming behaviour is definitely better.
By the way, acting as a compiler, I would probably not understand the
^anything! as a way to make a string from a value either. But that is not the question and I assume that the meaning was lost, when you prepared the minimal example. That is of course perfectly allright. It might however influence the expansion, if it ever expands to a quoted macro name, e.g. "AA". That would stop expanding and the result could unveil what happened.
Some legacy code I am working on has a macro which returns a comma-separated list intended to be used as function arguments. This is ugly, but the configuration file contains many of these and it would be difficult to change now.
#define XY1 0,0
#define XY2 1,7
...
void fun_point(x,y);
fun_point(XY1);
This works fine as long as it is a function being called. However, when trying to call another macro with the parameters, the whole string is considered as one argument rather than split at the comma into two arguments
#define MAC_POINT(x,y) (x+y)
MAC_POINT(XY1) #not expanded by preprocessor
Is there a workaround for this problem without changing the XY definitions?
Kinda. The following works:
#define MAC_POINT(x,y) (x+y)
#define MAC_POINT1(xy) MAC_POINT(xy)
#define XY x,y
MAC_POINT(x,y)
MAC_POINT1(XY)
However, you have to change from MAC_POINT to MAC_POINT1 if you only have one argument.
Another possibility is this:
#define MAC_POINT(x,y) (x+y)
#define MAC_POINT1(xy) MAC_POINT xy
#define XY x,y
MAC_POINT1((x,y))
MAC_POINT1((XY))
Now you have to change all your calls to the macro, but at least they're consistent.
At: C++ FAQ - Miscellaneous technical issues - [39.6] What should be done with macros that need to paste two tokens together?
Could someone explain to me why? All I read is trust me, but I simply can't just trust on something because someone said so.
I tried the approach and I can't find any bugs appearing:
#define mymacro(a) int a ## __LINE__
mymacro(prefix) = 5;
mymacro(__LINE__) = 5;
int test = prefix__LINE__*__LINE____LINE__; // fine
So why do I need to do it like this instead (quote from the webpage):
However you need a double layer of indirection when you use ##.
Basically you need to create a special macro for "token pasting" such
as:
#define NAME2(a,b) NAME2_HIDDEN(a,b)
#define NAME2_HIDDEN(a,b) a ## b
Trust me on this — you really need to do
this! (And please nobody write me saying it sometimes works without
the second layer of indirection. Try concatenating a symbol with
__ LINE__ and see what happens then.)
Edit: Could someone also explain why he uses NAME2_HIDDEN before it's declared below? It seems more logical to define NAME2_HIDDEN macro before I use it. Is it some sort of trick here?
The relevant part of the C spec:
6.10.3.1 Argument substitution
After the arguments for the invocation of a function-like macro have been identified,
argument substitution takes place. A parameter in the replacement list, unless preceded
by a # or ## preprocessing token or followed by a ## preprocessing token (see below), is
replaced by the corresponding argument after all macros contained therein have been
expanded. Before being substituted, each argument’s preprocessing tokens are
completely macro replaced as if they formed the rest of the preprocessing file; no other
preprocessing tokens are available.
The key part that determines whether you want the double indirection or not is the second sentence and the exception in it -- if the parameter is involved in a # or ## operation (such as the params in mymacro and NAME2_HIDDEN), then any other macros in the argument are NOT expanded prior to doing the # or ##. If, on the other hand, there's no # or ## IMMEDIATELY in the macro body (as with NAME2), then other macros in the parameters ARE expanded.
So it comes down to what you want -- sometimes you want all macros expanded FIRST, and then do the # or ## (in which case you want the double layer indirection) and sometime you DO NOT want the macros expanded first (in which case you CAN'T HAVE double layer macros, you need to do it directly.)
__LINE__ is a special macro that is supposed to resolve to the current line number. When you do a token paste with __LINE__ directly, however, it doesn't get a chance to resolve, so you end up with the token prefix__LINE__ instead of, say, prefix23, like you would probably be expecting if you would write this code in the wild.
Chris Dodd has an excellent explanation for the first part of your question. As for the second part, about the definition sequence, the short version is that #define directives by themselves are not evaluated at all; they are only evaluated and expanded when the symbol is found elsewhere in the file. For example:
#define A a //adds A->a to the symbol table
#define B b //adds B->b to the symbol table
int A;
#undef A //removes A->a from the symbol table
#define A B //adds A->B to the symbol table
int A;
The first int A; becomes int a; because that is how A is defined at that point in the file. The second int A; becomes int b; after two expansions. It is first expanded to int B; because A is defined as B at that point in the file. The preprocessor then recognizes that B is a macro when it checks the symbol table. B is then expanded to b.
The only thing that matters is the definition of the symbol at the point of expansion, regardless of where the definition is.
The most non-technical answer, which I gathered from all links here, and link of links ;) is that, a single layer indirection macro(x) #x stringifies the inputted macro's name, but by using double layers, it will stringify the inputted macro's value.
#define valueOfPi 3
#define macroHlp(x) #x
#define macro(x) macroHlp(x)
#define myVarOneLayer "Apprx. value of pi = " macroHlp(valueOfPi)
#define myVarTwoLayers "Apprx. value of pi = " macro(valueOfPi)
printf(myVarOneLayer); // out: Apprx. value of pi = valueOfPi
printf(myVarOTwoLayers); // out: Apprx. value of pi = 3
What happens at printf(myVarOneLayer)
printf(myVarOneLayer) is expanded to printf("Apprx. value of pi = " macroHlp(valueOfPi))
macroHlp(valueOfPi) tries to stringify the input, the input itself is not evaluated. It's only purpose in life is to take an input and stringify. So it expands to "valueOfPi"
So, what happens at printf(myVarTwoLayers)
printf(myVarTwoLayers) is expanded to printf("Apprx. value of pi = " macro(valueOfPi)
macro(valueOfPi) has no stringification operation, i.e. there is no #x in it's expansion, but there is an x, so it has to evaluate x and input the value to macroHlp for stringification. It expands to macroHlp(3) which in turn will stringify the number 3, since it is using #x
The order in which macros are declared is not important, the order in which they are used is. If you were to actually use that macro before it was declared -- (in actual code that is, not in a macro which remains dormant until summoned) then you would get an error of sorts but since most sane people don't go around doing these kinds of things, writing a macro and then writing a function that uses a macro not yet defined further down, etc,etc... It seems your question isn't just one question but I'll just answer that one part. I think you should have broken this down a little more.