I was programming a manchester decoding algorithm for arduino, and I often had to print debug stuff when trying to get things working, but printing to serial and string constants add a lot of overhead. I can't just leave it there in the final binary.
I usually just go through the code removing anything debug related lines.
I'm looking for a way to easily turn it on and off.
The only way I know is this
#if VERBOSE==1
Serial.println();
Serial.print(s);
Serial.print(" ");
Serial.print(t);
Serial.print(" preamble");
#endif
...
#if VERBOSE==1
Serial.println(" SYNC!\n");
#endif
and on top of the file I can just have
#define VERBOSE 0 // 1 to debug
I don't like how much clutter it adds to single liners. I was very tempted to do something very nasty like this. But yeah, evil.
Change every debug output to
verbose("debug message");
then use
#define verbose(x) Serial.print(x) //debug on
or
#define verbose(x) //debug off
There's a C++ feature that allows me to just do this instead of preprocessor?
At the risk of sounding silly: Yes, there is a C++ feature for this, it looks like this:
if (DEBUG)
{
// Your debugging stuff here…
}
If DEBUG is a compile-time constant (I think using a macro is reasonable but not required in this case), the compiler will almost certainly generate no code (not even a branch) for the debugging stuff if debug is false at compile-time.
In my code, I like having several debugging levels. Then I can write things like this:
if (DEBUG_LEVEL >= DEBUG_LEVEL_FINE)
{
// Your debugging stuff here…
}
Again, the compiler will optimize away the entire construct if the condition is false at compile-time.
You can even get more fancy by allowing a two-fold debugging level. A maximum level enabled at compile-time and the actual level used at run-time.
if (MAX_DEBUG >= DEBUG_LEVEL_FINE && Config.getDebugLevel() >= DEBUG_LEVEL_FINE)
{
// Your debugging stuff here…
}
You can #define MAX_DEBUG to the highest level you want to be able to select at run-time. In an all-performance build, you can #define MAX_DEBUG 0 which will make the condition always false and not generate any code at all. (Of course, you cannot select debugging at run-time in this case.)
However, if squeezing out the last instruction is not the most important issue and all your debugging code does is some logging, then the usual pattern lokks like this:
class Logger
{
public:
enum class LoggingLevel { ERROR, WARNING, INFO, … };
void logError(const std::string&) const;
void logWarning(const std::string&) const;
void logInfo(const std::string&) const;
// …
private:
LoggingLevel level_;
};
The various functions then compare the current logging level to the level indicated by the function name and if it is less, immediately return. Except in tight loops, this will probably be the most convenient solution.
And finally, we can combine both worlds by providing inline wrappers for the Logger class.
class Logger
{
public:
enum class LoggingLevel { ERROR, WARNING, INFO, … };
void
logError(const char *const msg) const
{
if (COMPILE_TIME_LOGGING_LEVEL >= LoggingLevel::ERROR)
this->log_(LoggingLevel::ERROR, msg);
}
void
logError(const std::string& msg) const
{
if (COMPILE_TIME_LOGGING_LEVEL >= LoggingLevel::ERROR)
this->log_(LoggingLevel::ERROR, msg.c_str());
}
// …
private:
LoggingLevel level_;
void
log_(LoggingLevel, const char *) const;
};
As long as evaluating the function arguments for your Logger::logError etc calls does not have visible side-effects, chances are good that the compiler will eliminate the call if the conditional in the inline function is false. This is why I have added the overloads that take a raw C-string to optimize the frequent case where the function is called with a string literal. Look at the assembly to be sure.
Personally I wouldn't have a a lot of #ifdef DEBUG scattered around my code:
#ifdef DEBUG
printf("something");
#endif
// some code ...
#ifdef DEBUG
printf("something else");
#endif
rather, I would wrap it in a function:
void DebugPrint(const char const *debugText) // ToDo: make it variadic [1]
{
#ifdef DEBUG
printf(debugText);
#endif
}
DebugPrint("something");
// some code ...
DebugPrint("something else");
If you don't define DEBUG then the macro preprocessor (not the compiler) won't expand that code.
The slight downside of my approach is that, although it makes your cod cleaner, it imposes an extra function call, even if DEBUG is not defined. It is possible that a smart linker will realize that the called function is empty and will remove the function calls, but I wouldn't bank on it.
References:
“Variadic function” in: Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
I also would suggest to use inline functions which become empty if a flag is set. Why when it is set? Because you usually want to debug always unless you compile a release build.
Because NDEBUG is already used you could use it too to avoid using multiple different flags. The definition of a debug level is also very useful.
One more thing to say: Be careful using functions which are altered by using macros! You could easily violate the One Definition Rule by translating some parts of your code with and some other without debugging disabled.
You might follow the convention of assert(3) and wrap debugging code with
#ifndef NDEBUG
DebugPrint("something");
#endif
See here (on StackOverflow, which would be a better place to ask) for a practical example.
In a more C++ like style, you could consider
ifdef NDEBUG
#define debugout(Out) do{} while(0)
#else
extern bool dodebug;
#define debugout(Out) do {if (dodebug) { \
std::cout << __FILE__ << ":" << __LINE__ \
<< " " << Out << std::endl; \
}} while(0)
#endif
then use debugout("here x=" << x) in your program. YMMV. (you'll set your dodebug flag either thru a gdb command or thru some program argument, perhaps parsed using getopt_long(3), at least on Linux).
PS. Remind that the do{...}while(0) is an old trick to make a robust statement like macro (suitable in every position where a plain statement is, e.g. as the then or else part of an if etc...).
You could also use templates utilizing the constexpr if feature in C++17. you don't have to worry about the preprocessor at all but your declaration and definition have to be in the same place when using templates.
Related
I'm fleshing out how I want to setup a debugging logger for an application. I'd like to be able to include calls to the logger from within the codebase, but have these calls only be made when build contains environment variable DO_LOG (so for development purposes only, then disabled for production build). The below code demonstrates what I'm thinking:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
// would be passed at compile time, but for this example define here
#ifndef DO_LOG
#define DO_LOG
#endif
namespace Logger
{
void log(std::string s)
{
#ifdef DO_LOG
std::cout << s << std::endl;
#endif
}
}
int main()
{
Logger::log("these are words");
}
My reasoning for attempting this this way is to eliminate the need to wrap every call to Logger::log with the #ifdef.
What I'm questioning though is whether or not I would reliably be able to depend on the compiler to remove (through code elimination) the call to Logger::log("these are words") when DO_LOG is not provided, since the function body would be empty.
Does this seem like it would be a safe approach to take?
In your simplified example, and in specific compilers at the highest optimization levels?
Yes, it is fully eliminated. Not for the reasons you are expecting though.
std::string("these are words") simply happens to hit a common optimization in STL implementations: "short strings". If the string is shorter than ~24 bytes (depending on the STL implementation), it is stored inline inside the std::string object, and no heap allocation is created.
So when the compiler inlines your function call (that's where the optimization levels comes into play, and potentially also any form of LTCG/LTO if it isn't in the same compilation unit), it also inlines the constructor of std::string, and has a good chance of detecting that special case for std::string, which is within the complexity the compiler can handle, and both the constructor and destructor of the std::string get fully eliminated during optimization.
Now try again with std::string("these are very long long long long long words"). This time, the object is not going to be optimized away easily, even recent GCC/Clang on highest optimization levels will fail to get rid of the temporary heap allocation.
C++17 to the rescue, just avoid the std::string (which may copy the input just for being created), and go with std::string_view:
#include <iostream>
#include <string_view>
// would be passed at compile time, but for this example define here
#ifndef DO_LOG
#define DO_LOG
#endif
namespace Logger
{
static void log(std::string_view s)
{
#ifdef DO_LOG
std::cout << s << std::endl;
#endif
}
}
int main()
{
Logger::log("these are very long long long long long words");
}
The main difference being that std::string_view never allocates anything on the heap, and being designed to be trivial to construct and destruct. Also Logger::log being declared static, such that no compiler gets the idea of skipping the inlining in a misguided assumption about having to maintain any form of interface outside the compilation unit.
So in doctest (my testing framework) the user can disable all tests by defining the DOCTEST_CONFIG_DISABLE identifier which makes the following code and macros:
TEST_CASE("name") {
int a = 5;
int b = 6;
CHECK(a == b);
}
turn into the following after the preprocessor:
template<typename T>
void some_anon_func_123() {
int a = 5;
int b = 6;
}
that means that the self-registering test case is turned into an uninstantiated template function and the CHECK() macro (which functions as an if statement checking the condition) into a no-op - like this:
#define CHECK(x) ((void)0) // if disabled
However if the user has factored such testing code in a separate function like this:
static int g() {
std::cout << "called!" << std::endl;
return 42;
}
static void f() {
int a = 5;
CHECK(a == g());
}
TEST_CASE("name") {
f();
}
then there will be warnings for unused functions and unused variables. doctest prides itself with producing 0 warnings even on the most aggressive levels so this is unacceptable.
I tried using the ((void) ...) trick by passing it the macro argument like this:
#define CHECK(x) ((void)(x))
and that indeed silenced the warnings (atleast for a and g()) but there is still code being generated for that statement - if I invoke the f() function from my main() I will see the called! string printed in the console. This is undesirable since I want the compilation to be as fast as possible when test cases and asserts are disabled from the build (by using the DOCTEST_CONFIG_DISABLE identifier). If a user has 100 000 asserts and builds with them disabled he wouldn't want all that unnecessary codegen and compile time overhead for macros that are supposed to be disabled (the CHECK() one).
__attribute__((unused)) has to be used at the point of declaration of a variable - I cannot stick it in the CHECK() macro (or can I? I don't know...).
Not sure if _Pragma() could help - and even if it could - it is known to have issues with GCC:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55578
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69543
Is there a solution to my problem - like perhaps passing the expression to some template or whatever...? (C++98 solution needed)
I explained my problem in excruciating detail only because I often get accused of the XY problem...
EDIT:
A C++11 solution is OK too - some C++11 features have started to conditionally creep into the library anyway...
So, you want to "lie" to the compiler that you're using a function which you're not actually calling. So how to use a piece of code without executing it?
It seems that the only thing that works on all popular compilers is a C++11-only solution - a lambda which is never called:
#define CHECK(x) [&](){ ((void)(x)); }
If you absolutely need a c++98 solution, a sizeof will also work on many compilers, MSVC being a notable exception:
#define CHECK(x) sizeof(x)
MSVC will still warn for uncalled functions in the expression x.
I guess for maximum coverage you could employ a combination of the two.
// Example assert function
inline void assertImpl(bool mExpr, const std::string& mMsg) {
if(!mExpr) { printMsg(mMsg); abortExecution(); }
}
// Wrapper macro
#ifdef NDEBUG
#define MY_ASSERT(...) do{ ; }while(false)
#else
#define MY_ASSERT(...) assertImpl(__VA_ARGS__)
#endif
Consider the case where mExpr or mMsg are not-pure expressions - is there a way to force the compiler to optimize them out anyway?
bool globalState{false};
bool pureExpression() { return false; }
bool impureExpression() { globalState = !globalState; return false; }
// ...
// This will very likely be optimized out with (NDEBUG == 0)
MY_ASSERT(pureExpression());
// Will this be optimized out with (NDEBUG == 0)
MY_ASSERT(impureExpression());
What do compilers usually do in a situation where an impure expression is "discarded"?
Is there a way to make 100% sure that pure expressions get optimized out?
Is there a way to make 100% sure that impure expressions get optimized out or never get optimized out?
After macro expansion, your call to impureExpression() no longer exists: it's not part of the macro expansion result. If the call to your function isn't there, the function won't be called, on all conforming implementations, at any optimisation level, as long as NDEBUG is defined.
Note: you talk about NDEBUG == 0, but if that is what you want the condition to be, your #ifdef NDEBUG condition is incorrect. #ifdef tests whether the macro is defined, and pays no attention to what the definition is.
The optimizer is not involved here. In the macro that is enabled with NDEBUG, the arguments are discarded regardless.
We know that in-line are favorable as they are checked by the compiler and same operation ( like ++x ) does not evaluate more than once when passed as an argument as compared to macros.
But in an interview I was asked the specific advantages or the circumstances when a macro is more favorable to inline in C++.
Does anyone know the answer or can give a thought on this question ?
The only thing I can think of is there are some tricks that you can do with a macro that can't be done with an inline function. Pasting tokens together at compile-time, and that sort of hackery.
Here is a specific situation where macros are not only preferred, they are actually the only way to accomplish something.
If you want to write a logging function which logs not only some message, but the file & line number of where the instance occured, you can either call your function directly, typing in the file & line values (or macros) directly:
LogError("Something Bad!", __FILE__, __LINE__);
...or, if you want it to work automatically, you must rely on a macro (warning: not compiled):
#define LogErrorEx(ERR) (LogError(ERR, __FILE__, __LINE__))
// ...
LogErrorEx("Something Else Bad!");
This cannot be achieved using templates, default parameters, default construction, or any other device in C++.
Sometimes you want to extend the language in ways that aren't possible with any other method.
#include <iostream>
#define CHECK(x) if (x); else std::cerr << "CHECK(" #x ") failed!" << std::endl
int main() {
int x = 053;
CHECK(x == 42);
return 0;
}
This prints CHECK(x == 42) failed!.
In C++ specifically, one usage of MACROs that seem pop up very often (except for the debug print with file and line) is the use of MACROs to fill in a set of standard methods in a class that cannot be inherited from a base class. In some libraries that create custom mechanisms of RTTI, serialization, expression templates, etc., they often rely on a set of static const variables and static methods (and possibly special semantics for some overloaded operators that cannot be inherited) which are almost always the same but need to be added to any class that the user defines within this framework. In these cases, MACROs are often provided such that the user doesn't have to worry about putting all the necessary code (he only has to invoke the MACRO with the require info). For example, if I make a simple RTTI (Run-Time Type Identification) system, I might require that all classes have a TypeID and be dynamically castable:
class Foo : public Bar {
MY_RTTI_REGISTER_CLASS(Foo, Bar, 0xBAADF00D)
};
#define MY_RTTI_REGISTER_CLASS(CLASSNAME,BASECLASS,UNIQUEID) \
public:\
static const int TypeID = UNIQUEID;\
virtual void* CastTo(int aTypeID) {\
if(aTypeID == TypeID)\
return this;\
else\
return BASECLASS::CastTo(aTypeID);\
};
The above could not be done with templates or inheritance, and it makes the user's life easier and avoids code repetition.
I would say that this kind of use of MACROs is by far the most common in C++.
As already said, macros can use preprocessor directives: __FILE__, __LINE__ for instance, but of course #include and #define can also be useful to parameter behaviour:
#ifdef __DEBUG__
# define LOG(s) std:cout << s << std:endl
#else
# define LOG(s)
#endif
Depending wether __DEBUG__ is defined or not (via #define or via compiler options), the LOG macro will be active or not. This is an easy way to have debug info everywhere in your code that can be easily de-activated.
You can also think of changing the way memory is allocated (malloc will be redefined to target a memory pool instead of the standard heap for instance, etc...).
Inline functions are, as the name indicates, restricted to functional tasks, execution of some code.
Macros have a much broader application they may expand e.g to declarations or replace entire language constructs. Some examples (written for C and C++) that can't be done with functions:
typedef struct POD { double a; unsigned b } POD;
#declare POD_INITIALIZER { 1.0, 37u }
POD myPOD = POD_INITIALIZER;
#define DIFFICULT_CASE(X) case (X)+2 :; case (X)+3
#define EASY_CASE(X) case (X)+4 :; case (X)+5
switch (a) {
default: ++a; break;
EASY_CASE('0'): --a; break;
DIFFICULT_CASE('A'): a = helperfunction(a); break;
}
#define PRINT_VALUE(X) \
do { \
char const* _form = #X " has value 0x%lx\n"; \
fprintf(stderr, _form, (unsigned long)(X)); \
} while (false)
In the context of C++, Boost has a lot of more examples that are more involved and more useful.
But because with such macros you are in some sort extending the language (not strictly, the preprocessor is part of it) many people dislike macros, particularly in the C++ community, a bit less in the C community.
In any case, if you use such constructs you should always be very clear in what the should achieve, document well, and fight against the temptation to obfuscate your code.
A macro is just like a text replacement definition.
These essential differences that come into my mind are:
It must not be function-like. I mean it must not necessarily contain some consistent set of brackets for example.
It can be used elsewhere. Like in a class declaration scope or even in the global scope. So it must not be in the scope of another function.
You must use them if you want to perform actions that are impossible to be performed using functions:
initializing complicated tables (makes core more readable)
ease declaration of some special members like event IDs or tag classes (used a lot in MFC IMPLEMENT_DYNAMIC)
squeeze repetitive declarations at the beginning of functions
the already mentioned use of __LINE__, __FILE__, ... for logging
#include <stdio.h>
#define sq(x) x*x
int main()
{
printf("%d", sq(2+1));
printf("%d", sq(2+5));
return 0;
}
The output for this code are 5 and 17. Macros expand textually. Its not like functions.
Explanation for this example:
sq(2+1) = 2+1*2+1 = 2+2+1 = 5
sq(2+5) = 2+5*2+5 = 2+10+5 = 17
I would add two uses:
MIN and MAX, until C++0x, because the return type had to be declared by hand, mixed min and max as inlined functions would have been nightmarish, while a simple macro did it in the blink of an eye.
privacy: you can always undef the macro before exiting your header, you cannot "undeclare" an inline function (or another symbol). This is due to the absence of proper modularity in C and C++ languages.
Let's say I have this code:
int function(bool b)
{
// execution path 1
int ret = 0;
if(b)
{
// execution path 2
ret = 55;
}
else
{
// execution path 3
ret = 120;
}
return ret;
}
I need some sort of a mechanism to make sure that the code has gone in any possible path, i.e execution paths 1, 2 & 3 in the code above.
I thought about having a global function, vector and a macro.
This macro would simply call that function, passing as parameters the source file name and the line of code, and that function would mark that as "checked", by inserting to the vector the info that the macro passed.
The problem is that I will not see anything about paths that did not "check".
Any idea how do I do this? How to "register" a line of code at compile-time, so in run-time I can see that it didn't "check" yet?
I hope I'm clear.
Usually coverage utilities (such as gcov) are supplied with compiler. However please note that they will usually give you only C0 coverage. I.e.
C0 - every line is executed at least once. Please note that a ? b : c is marked as executed even if only one branch have been used.
C1 - every branch is executed at least once.
C2 - every path is executed at least once
So even if your tests shows 100% C0 coverage you may not catch every path in code - and probably you don't have time to do it (number of paths grows exponentially with respect to branches). However it is good to know if you have 10% C2 or 70% C2 (or 0.1% C2).
Quite often there will be a utility supplied with your compiler to do this sort of code coverage analysis. For example, GCC has the gcov utility.
You need a code coverage program (gcov, bullseye, dev partner) and unit-testing (unittest++, cppunit, etc.). You write test that will test that function.
TEST( UnitTestFunction )
{
CHECK( function(true) == 55 );
CHECK( function(false) == 120 );
}
Then unit tests in this case do not just check for integrity (though they still do) but they also test for coverage.
Try SD C++ TestCoverage for a VisualStudio compatible test coverage tool. I believe that it in fact actually will tell you about test coverage of a?b:c, too.
The problem is that I will not see anything about paths that did not "check".
If this means in other words that you're not only looking for the set of code points which are actually executed but also for the set of code points which have been "marked" somehow as expected to be executed to maybe finally report the difference, i might have a very dangerous solution. It works for me on MSVC 2010 and 2013.
The approach is to make use of the pre program start initialization of static variables, but since all code points are in functions and therefore, the "static anker point" has to be put there somehow and so, the c++ feature of delayed initialization of static function variables has to be overcome.
This seems to be possible by adding an indirection through a template class (X) with a static member variable (progloc_) to enforce the initialization per template parameter which in turn is a wrapper struct which transports the needed information (_.FILE._ " at line " _.LINE._).
Putting this together, the most important code to achieve this could look like the following:
template <class T> class X {
public:
static T progloc_;
};
template <class T> T X<T>::progloc_;
#define TRACE_CODE_POINT \
struct ProgLocation { \
public: \
std::string loc_; \
ProgLocation() : loc_(std::string(__FILE__ " at line " S__LINE__)) \
{ \
TestFw::CodePoints::Test::imHere(loc_); \
} \
}; \
TestFw::CodePoints::X<ProgLocation> dummy; \
TestFw::CodePoints::Test::iGotCalled(dummy.progloc_.loc_);
The S__LINE__ - trick which is used in the ProgLocation - ctor comes from here on SO.
#define S(x) #x
#define S_(x) S(x)
#define S__LINE__ S_(__LINE__)
To track, the following is used:
class Test
{
private:
typedef std::set<std::string> TFuncs;
static TFuncs registeredFunctions;
static TFuncs calledFunctions;
public:
static int imHere(const std::string fileAndLine)
{
assert(registeredFunctions.find(fileAndLine) == registeredFunctions.end());
registeredFunctions.insert(fileAndLine);
return 0;
}
static void iGotCalled(const std::string fileAndLine)
{
if (calledFunctions.find(fileAndLine) == calledFunctions.end())
calledFunctions.insert(fileAndLine);
}
static void report()
{
for (TFuncs::const_iterator rfIt = registeredFunctions.begin(); rfIt != registeredFunctions.end(); ++rfIt)
if (calledFunctions.find(*rfIt) == calledFunctions.end())
std::cout << (*rfIt) << " didn't get called" << std::endl;
}
};
Maybe there are many problems connected with this approach which I don't see yet and make it inpracticable for your case, and as others pointed out, using static code analysis tools is for most situations the better solution.
EDIT:
Just found out that the provided solution has been discussed before in another context:
non-deferred-static-member-initialization-for-templates-in-gcc
You can use FILE and LINE preprocessor directives:
#define TRACE(msg) MyTraceNotify(msg,__FILE__,__LINE__)
Just insert TRACE(msg) macro in your code at the places you want to track, with your custom message, and write your MyTraceNotify function.
void MyTraceNotify(const char *msg, const char *filename, ULONG line)
{
/* Put your code here... */
}