Off late I have had too use some template libraries like Boost and Thrust (for CUDA) in some of my coding work.
For using a certain feature of the Boost library, one has to include the appropriate header.e.g. for boost::lexical_cast I have to use boost/lexical_cast.hpp. It is tiring to keep including the appropriate header for every new feature of Boost / Thrust which I use for my projects.
Is there any "shortcut" to tell the pre-processor to include all the header files stored under the boost library, so that I need not bother about which header file to include?
I am using GCC under Ubuntu.
You don't want that. You want to include as little as possible. Compile times are abysmal in C++ as it is. Start to include everything everywhere and it is going to get worse even.
I have been working in a project where compilation on a decent single core CPU of the time took 50mins, linking 5-10mins. This hurts big time, if you're doing template stuff deep down in the foundations.
Boost comes with a bunch of stuff (like the MPL) that stretches the compiler to its utmost limits. It would be insane to include this stuff everywhere (except for a five-cpp-files kind of project).
You could simply make a mother-of-all header file like so:
for i in $(find /usr/include/boost/); do echo "#include <"${i/"/usr/include/"/}">"; done > master_header.hpp
Now you can add that and use precompiled headers (you may need an overnight compilation to make the PCH). You should also pass -Wl,-as-needed to the linker to avoid including unneeded libraries.
As #sbi says, this isn't advisable in the least, but since you asked... sometimes the best remedy against finding something "tiresome" is to see how much worse it could be!
In my project several STL headers are used in different files. I read that, putting all these headers into a single header and using that header in my files will allow compilers to precompile the header which may lead into faster compile time.
If I understood it correctly, I need to write like the following.
// stl.hpp
#include <string>
#include <algorithm>
#include <vector>
Now include stl.hpp in all the files that needs access to STL. Is this correct?
Few of my files will be using only functionality from vector header file. But if I follow the above method, it will include unnecessary headers. Will this make any problem? Is there any code generated if I include a header file and not used anything from that?
Any help would be great!
Basically every decent compiler uses precompiled headers. Already compiled headers will be cached and only recompiled if they were changed.
Using already compiled headers instead of recompiling them every time speeds up compilation time.
But whether you combine commonly used headers in a singe file or include them in each source file separately won't matter in terms of compilation speed.
Before attempting to speed-up you build by using pre-compiled headers, it's worth benchmarking/timing your existing builds to see if the speed-up will be worth the effort.
If you only have a few dozen files with #include <string> you may see no improvement. If you have 1000s of file, then it may be worth it.
See this article for more excellent info: www.cygnus-software.com
Is there a way for the preprocessor to detect if the code in current
translation unit uses(or is creating) precompiled headers?
---
The actual problem I'm facing right now is that I'm on a project that is
abusing PCH by precompiling virtually all header files. That means there is none of
the clear dependency management you can get from #includes and the compile times is awful.
Practically every change will trigger a full rebuild.
The application is way to big to just fix it in one go, and some of the old guys refuses
to belive that precompiling everyting is bad in any way. I will have to prove it first.
So I must do it step by step and make sure my changes does not affect
code that is compiled the old PCH way.
My plan is to do ifdef out the PCH.h and work on the non PCH version whenever I have some time to spare.
#ifdef USES_PCH
#include "PCH.h"
#elif
// include only whats needed
#endif
I would like to avoid defining USES_PCH at command line and manually keep it in
sync with /Y that, besides from not being very elegant, would be a pain. There is a lot of configurations
and modules to juggle with and a lot of files that don't follow project defaults.
If Visual C++ defined a constant to indicate whether precompiled headers were in use, it would probably be listed in Predefined Macros. And it's not documented there, so it probably doesn't exist. (If it does exist, it's probably undocumented and may change in a future version.)
This will not work, when using precompiled headers in Visual C++, you cannot even have any code before including a precompiled header. I was trying to do something similar, when I came across your question. After a little trial and error, I have found that there can be no code prior to the #include directive for the precompiled header when using the /Yu compiler option.
#ifdef USES_PCH
#include "stdafx.h"
#endif
result: fatal error C1020: unexpected #endif
As far as I know, it can't, but there are some heuristics: VC++ uses StdAfx.h, Borland uses #pragma hdrstop, etc.
I have a Visual Studio C++ based program that uses pre-compiled headers (stdafx.h). Now we are porting the application to Linux using gcc 4.x.
The question is how to handle pre-compiled header in both environments.
I've googled but can not come to a conclusion.
Obviously I want leave stdafx.h in Visual Studio since the code base is pretty big and pre-compiled headers boost compilation time.
But the question is what to do in Linux. This is what I found:
Leave the stdafx.h as is. gcc compiles code considerable faster than VC++ (or it is just my Linux machine is stronger ... :) ), so I maybe happy with this option.
Use approach from here - make stdafx.h look like (set USE_PRECOMPILED_HEADER for VS only):
#ifdef USE_PRECOMPILED_HEADER
... my stuff
#endif
Use the approach from here - compile VC++ with /FI to implicitly include stdafx.h in each cpp file. Therefore in VS your code can be switched easily to be compiled without pre-compiled headers and no code will have to be changed.
I personally dislike dependencies and the mess stdafx.h is pushing a big code base towards. Therefore the option is appealing to me - on Linux you don't have stdafx.h, while still being able to turn on pre-compiled headers on VS by /FI only.
On Linux compile stdafx.h only as a precompiled header (mimic Visual Studio)
Your opinion? Are there other approaches to treat the issue?
You're best off using precompiled headers still for fastest compilation.
You can use precompiled headers in gcc as well. See here.
The compiled precompiled header will have an extension appended as .gch instead of .pch.
So for example if you precompile stdafx.h you will have a precompiled header that will be automatically searched for called stdafx.h.gch anytime you include stdafx.h
Example:
stdafx.h:
#include <string>
#include <stdio.h>
a.cpp:
#include "stdafx.h"
int main(int argc, char**argv)
{
std::string s = "Hi";
return 0;
}
Then compile as:
> g++ -c stdafx.h -o stdafx.h.gch
> g++ a.cpp
> ./a.out
Your compilation will work even if you remove stdafx.h after step 1.
I used option 3 last time I needed to do this same thing. My project was pretty small but this worked wonderfully.
I'd either go for option 4 or option 2. I've experimented with precompiled headers on both various VS versions and GCC on Linux (blog posts about this here and here). In my experience, VS is a lot more sensitive to the length of the include paths, number of directories in the include path and the number of include files than G++ is. When I measured build times properly arranged precompiled headers would make a massive difference to the compile time under VS whereas G++ was pretty much unimpressed by this.
Actually, based on the above what I did the last time I worked on a project where this was necessary to rein in the compile time was to precompile the equivalent of stdafx.h under Windows where it made sense and simply used it as a regular file under Linux.
Very simple solution.
Add a dummy file entry for "stdafx.h" in Linux environment.
I would only use option 1 in a big team of developers.
Options 2, 3, and 4 will often halt the productivity of other members of your team, so you can save a few minutes a day in compile time.
Here's why:
Let's assume that half of your developers use VS and half use gcc.
Every now and then some VS developer will forget to include a header in a .cpp file.
He won't notice, because the stdafx.h implicitly includes it. So, he pushes his changes in the version control, and then a few other members of the gcc team will get compiler errors.
So, for every 5 minutes-a-day you gain by using precompiled headers, 5 other people waste by fixing your missing headers.
If you don't share the same code across all of your compilers, you will run into problems like that every day. If you force your VS developers to check for compilation on gcc before pushing changes, then you will throw away all your productivity gains from using precompiled headers.
Option 4 sounds appealing, but what if you want to use another compiler at some point in time ? Option 4 only works if you only use VS and gcc.
Notice that option 1 may make gcc compilation suffer a few seconds. Although it may not be noticeable.
It's simple, really:
Project->Project Settings (Alt + F7)
Project-Settings-Dialog:
C++ -> Category: Precompiled Headers -> Precompiled Headers radio buttons --> disable
Since stdafx.h is by default all the Windows-specific stuff, I've put an empty stdafx.h on my other platform. That way your source code stays identical, while effectively disabling stdafx on Linux without having to remove all the #include "stdafx.h" lines from your code.
If you are using CMake in your project, then there are modules which automate it for you, very convenient, for example see cmake-precompiled-header here. To use it just include the module and call:
include( cmake-precompiled-header/PrecompiledHeader.cmake )
add_precompiled_header( ${target} ${header} FORCEINCLUDE SOURCE_CXX ${source} )
Another module called Cotire creates the header file to be precompiled (no need to manually write StdAfx.h) and speeds up builds in other ways - see here.
I've done both option 2 (#ifdef) and option 4 (PCH for gcc) for cross platform code with no issues.
I find gcc compiles much faster than VS so the precompiled headers are generally not that important, unless you are referencing some huge header file.
I have a situation where #2 in particular didn't work for me (There are numerous VS build configs where a #ifdef around #include "stdafx.h" does not work). Other solutions were suboptimal because the files themselves were cross-project as well as being cross-platform. I did not want to force preprocessor macros to be set or force linux or even windows builds to use (or not use) pch, so...
What I did, given a file named notificationEngine.cpp, for example, was removed the #include stdafx.h line entirely, created a new file in the same directory called pchNotificationEngine.cpp with the following contents:
#include "stdafx.h"
#include "notificationEngine.cpp"
Any given project can just include the correct version of the file. This admittedly is probably not the best option for cpp files that are only used by a single project.
I am working on a large C++ project in Visual Studio 2008, and there are a lot of files with unnecessary #include directives. Sometimes the #includes are just artifacts and everything will compile fine with them removed, and in other cases classes could be forward declared and the #include could be moved to the .cpp file. Are there any good tools for detecting both of these cases?
While it won't reveal unneeded include files, Visual studio has a setting /showIncludes (right click on a .cpp file, Properties->C/C++->Advanced) that will output a tree of all included files at compile time. This can help in identifying files that shouldn't need to be included.
You can also take a look at the pimpl idiom to let you get away with fewer header file dependencies to make it easier to see the cruft that you can remove.
PC Lint works quite well for this, and it finds all sorts of other goofy problems for you too. It has command line options that can be used to create External Tools in Visual Studio, but I've found that the Visual Lint addin is easier to work with. Even the free version of Visual Lint helps. But give PC-Lint a shot. Configuring it so it doesn't give you too many warnings takes a bit of time, but you'll be amazed at what it turns up.
There's a new Clang-based tool, include-what-you-use, that aims to do this.
!!DISCLAIMER!! I work on a commercial static analysis tool (not PC Lint). !!DISCLAIMER!!
There are several issues with a simple non parsing approach:
1) Overload Sets:
It's possible that an overloaded function has declarations that come from different files. It might be that removing one header file results in a different overload being chosen rather than a compile error! The result will be a silent change in semantics that may be very difficult to track down afterwards.
2) Template specializations:
Similar to the overload example, if you have partial or explicit specializations for a template you want them all to be visible when the template is used. It might be that specializations for the primary template are in different header files. Removing the header with the specialization will not cause a compile error, but may result in undefined behaviour if that specialization would have been selected. (See: Visibility of template specialization of C++ function)
As pointed out by 'msalters', performing a full analysis of the code also allows for analysis of class usage. By checking how a class is used though a specific path of files, it is possible that the definition of the class (and therefore all of its dependnecies) can be removed completely or at least moved to a level closer to the main source in the include tree.
I don't know of any such tools, and I have thought about writing one in the past, but it turns out that this is a difficult problem to solve.
Say your source file includes a.h and b.h; a.h contains #define USE_FEATURE_X and b.h uses #ifdef USE_FEATURE_X. If #include "a.h" is commented out, your file may still compile, but may not do what you expect. Detecting this programatically is non-trivial.
Whatever tool does this would need to know your build environment as well. If a.h looks like:
#if defined( WINNT )
#define USE_FEATURE_X
#endif
Then USE_FEATURE_X is only defined if WINNT is defined, so the tool would need to know what directives are generated by the compiler itself as well as which ones are specified in the compile command rather than in a header file.
Like Timmermans, I'm not familiar with any tools for this. But I have known programmers who wrote a Perl (or Python) script to try commenting out each include line one at a time and then compile each file.
It appears that now Eric Raymond has a tool for this.
Google's cpplint.py has an "include what you use" rule (among many others), but as far as I can tell, no "include only what you use." Even so, it can be useful.
If you're interested in this topic in general, you might want to check out Lakos' Large Scale C++ Software Design. It's a bit dated, but goes into lots of "physical design" issues like finding the absolute minimum of headers that need to be included. I haven't really seen this sort of thing discussed anywhere else.
Give Include Manager a try. It integrates easily in Visual Studio and visualizes your include paths which helps you to find unnecessary stuff.
Internally it uses Graphviz but there are many more cool features. And although it is a commercial product it has a very low price.
You can build an include graph using C/C++ Include File Dependencies Watcher, and find unneeded includes visually.
If your header files generally start with
#ifndef __SOMEHEADER_H__
#define __SOMEHEADER_H__
// header contents
#endif
(as opposed to using #pragma once) you could change that to:
#ifndef __SOMEHEADER_H__
#define __SOMEHEADER_H__
// header contents
#else
#pragma message("Someheader.h superfluously included")
#endif
And since the compiler outputs the name of the cpp file being compiled, that would let you know at least which cpp file is causing the header to be brought in multiple times.
PC-Lint can indeed do this. One easy way to do this is to configure it to detect just unused include files and ignore all other issues. This is pretty straightforward - to enable just message 766 ("Header file not used in module"), just include the options -w0 +e766 on the command line.
The same approach can also be used with related messages such as 964 ("Header file not directly used in module") and 966 ("Indirectly included header file not used in module").
FWIW I wrote about this in more detail in a blog post last week at http://www.riverblade.co.uk/blog.php?archive=2008_09_01_archive.xml#3575027665614976318.
Adding one or both of the following #defines
will exclude often unnecessary header files and
may substantially improve
compile times especially if the code that is not using Windows API functions.
#define WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN
#define VC_EXTRALEAN
See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/166474
If you are looking to remove unnecessary #include files in order to decrease build times, your time and money might be better spent parallelizing your build process using cl.exe /MP, make -j, Xoreax IncrediBuild, distcc/icecream, etc.
Of course, if you already have a parallel build process and you're still trying to speed it up, then by all means clean up your #include directives and remove those unnecessary dependencies.
Start with each include file, and ensure that each include file only includes what is necessary to compile itself. Any include files that are then missing for the C++ files, can be added to the C++ files themselves.
For each include and source file, comment out each include file one at a time and see if it compiles.
It is also a good idea to sort the include files alphabetically, and where this is not possible, add a comment.
If you aren't already, using a precompiled header to include everything that you're not going to change (platform headers, external SDK headers, or static already completed pieces of your project) will make a huge difference in build times.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/szfdksca(VS.71).aspx
Also, although it may be too late for your project, organizing your project into sections and not lumping all local headers to one big main header is a good practice, although it takes a little extra work.
If you would work with Eclipse CDT you could try out http://includator.com to optimize your include structure. However, Includator might not know enough about VC++'s predefined includes and setting up CDT to use VC++ with correct includes is not built into CDT yet.
The latest Jetbrains IDE, CLion, automatically shows (in gray) the includes that are not used in the current file.
It is also possible to have the list of all the unused includes (and also functions, methods, etc...) from the IDE.
Some of the existing answers state that it's hard. That's indeed true, because you need a full compiler to detect the cases in which a forward declaration would be appropriate. You cant parse C++ without knowing what the symbols mean; the grammar is simply too ambiguous for that. You must know whether a certain name names a class (could be forward-declared) or a variable (can't). Also, you need to be namespace-aware.
Maybe a little late, but I once found a WebKit perl script that did just what you wanted. It'll need some adapting I believe (I'm not well versed in perl), but it should do the trick:
http://trac.webkit.org/browser/branches/old/safari-3-2-branch/WebKitTools/Scripts/find-extra-includes
(this is an old branch because trunk doesn't have the file anymore)
If there's a particular header that you think isn't needed anymore (say
string.h), you can comment out that include then put this below all the
includes:
#ifdef _STRING_H_
# error string.h is included indirectly
#endif
Of course your interface headers might use a different #define convention
to record their inclusion in CPP memory. Or no convention, in which case
this approach won't work.
Then rebuild. There are three possibilities:
It builds ok. string.h wasn't compile-critical, and the include for it
can be removed.
The #error trips. string.g was included indirectly somehow
You still don't know if string.h is required. If it is required, you
should directly #include it (see below).
You get some other compilation error. string.h was needed and isn't being
included indirectly, so the include was correct to begin with.
Note that depending on indirect inclusion when your .h or .c directly uses
another .h is almost certainly a bug: you are in effect promising that your
code will only require that header as long as some other header you're using
requires it, which probably isn't what you meant.
The caveats mentioned in other answers about headers that modify behavior
rather that declaring things which cause build failures apply here as well.