Here's a simplified example. Suppose I'm writing program A using libraries B and C. Niether library's source code can be changed and they are the only available libraries for the purpose. Library B has a reasonable #define whereas Library C has a stupid #define that aliases it. Something like, say:
//library_b_header.hpp
#pragma once
#define uint16 unsigned short
//...
//library_c_header.hpp
#pragma once
#define uint16 unsigned char
Most of the precedent I have is questions like this. One answer helpfully suggests, covering the range of suggestions I've seen (paraphrasing):
Add #undef in your own code
Don't directly include library_c_header.hpp. If another library includes it for you, don't include that directly. Instead, include it in a separate .cpp file, which can then expose wrapper functions in its header.
Rename your own symbol.
The second option is close to my normal solution, but library C is huge; I can't possibly wrap all the functionality. Even if I could, there's a good chance of screwing up, and it's certainly not portable to new releases of library C (which are also frequent).
The third option doesn't work, since this is used everywhere. It's not just me that this is conflicting with; it's conflicting with literally everything else. I suppose it could be done . . . it's just a MORALLY WRONG #define, AND IT SHOULD DIE!
The first option here is closest to what I'm trying. The second issue is that #includeing library C depends on a token defined in library B.
The furthest I've gotten is:
#include <library_b/library_b_header.hpp>
#define library_b_uint16 uint16
#undef uint16
#ifdef LIBRARY_B_SYMBOL
#include <library_c/library_c_header.hpp>
#undef uint16
#define uint16 library_b_uint16
#endif
This clearly doesn't work, but perhaps it expresses my intent. Is there anything else I could try?
If your compiler supports the push_macro and pop_macro pragmas, you may be able to use them like so:
#include <library_b/library_b_header.hpp>
#pragma push_macro("uint16")
#undef uint16
#include <library_c/library_c_header.hpp>
#pragma pop_macro("uint16")
(These pragmas are nonstandard, but they are widely supported. Visual C++, gcc, clang, and the Intel C++ Compiler all support them.)
Yes, you need to do this everywhere you include a header from Library C that defines this macro, but this is usually simplified by writing your own header that wraps inclusion of the Library C headers, then including that header wherever Library C is needed in your project.
Related
I've been using C++ and compiling with clang++. I would like to include the <xcb/xkb.h> header for an X11 program I am writing.
Unfortunately this header uses explicit for some field names (such as line 727) and that is a keyword in C++.
Is there anyway to deal with this?
xcb/xkb.h:
// ...
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif
// ...
typedef struct xcb_xkb_set_explicit_t {
xcb_keycode_t keycode;
uint8_t explicit;
} xcb_xkb_set_explicit_t;
// ...
#ifdef __cplusplus
}
#endif
// ...
Use a macro to rename the fields:
#ifdef __clang__
#pragma clang diagnostic push
#pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wkeyword-macro"
#endif
#define explicit explicit_
#ifdef __clang__
#pragma clang diagnostic pop
#endif
#include <xcb/xkb.h>
#undef explicit
Using a keyword as a macro name is ill-formed in standard C++, but GCC, Clang (with pragma), and MSVC do accept it. (The standard says you "shall not" do it, cppreference clarifies that it means "ill-formed".)
How can I include a C header that uses a C++ keyword as an identifier in C++?
There is no standard-conforming solution to be able to include such header. In order to be able to include a header in C++, it must be written in valid C++. In case of a C header, it would thus have to be written in common subset of C and C++.
The ideal solution is to fix the header to be valid C++. A standard-conforming workaround is to write a C++ conforming wrapper in C.
(Not an answer to the exact question, but possibly useful for the general problem of interfacing C & C++)
How about using an intermediate set of C files (.c & .h) to wrap the incompatible header and provide a C++-compatible interface to the rest of your program? If that interface is high-level enough, then you would only need to include the incompatible header file in the wrapper .c file only, allowing the wrapper .h header file to be included in C++ code normally.
Depending on the details, you might end up doing some trivial copying of data, but the resulting C interface might be much more suited to your specific needs.
One solution is to add a generation step to your makefile that copies the header and renames the field, and include said autogenerated header instead.
(This is between difficult to impossible to do in the general case, but in this case given that the header isn't likely using explicit for anything else even just a simple (gnu) sed (s/\bexplicit\b/explicit_field/g or somesuch) would work. The trickier bit is figuring out the correct file to copy.)
Make sure that the location of the copied header is before the original header in your include path, in case something else in your includes indirectly includes the header.
Just changing a field name shouldn't have any effects on e.g. ABI, at least for a nominally-C-compatible header. (There are cases in C++ where renaming a field does affect things.)
I`ve studied C, and now I decided to switch to C++.
So, in C, I used #ifndef #endif in my header files. Should I use the same commands in C++? Or are there some alternatives?
Yes, the preprocessor works (mostly) the same way, so you should still use preprocessor directives to guard against including the same code more than once.
Any differences in functionality between the preprocessor in C and C++ are likely to be edge cases that are unlikely to be relevant at your current learning level.
The file/header relationship is identical in C and C++.
foo.h:
#ifndef SOME_UNIQUE_NAME_HERE
#define SOME_UNIQUE_NAME_HERE
// your declarations (and certain types of definitions) here
#endif
The C++ preprocessor is essential the same when compared to it’s C counterpart. All directives will work in either language whether written in a header (.h) or a source file (.c, .cc, .cpp).
Read more about the wonders of headers here!
The answer from Commader_Quazar is right and enough.
ALternatively you can substitute:
#ifndef SOME_UNIQUE_NAME_HERE
#define SOME_UNIQUE_NAME_HERE
// your declarations (and certain types of definitions) here
#endif
with:
#pragma once
// your declarations (and certain types of definitions) here
which lets you write 1 line of code instead of 3, and is less error prone (since in this case you don't have to worry about remembering to put #endif at the end of the file) however I personally prefer the first option.
I get roughly what it does. What I don't understand is why it's not the default? What are the use cases where some header file would need to be included multiple times?
The reason it's not the default is primarily historical these days -- when the C language was formalized, #include was specified that it must act exactly as if the user had copy-and-pasted the specified file's contents at the location of the #include-line; and C++ wanted (and wants) to remain as compatible as possible with C, so C++ inherited that behavior from C.
As for a use-case where including the same header file more than once might be useful; one instance where I found it useful was for simulating a templated-container-class in C (because C doesn't support templates directly). I had a container-implementation-header-file that looked something like this (but more elaborate; I'm showing a simplified version here for readability):
// MyContainerImplemention.h
// be sure to #define MYTYPE and MYARRAYSIZE
// before #include-ing this file!
struct ArrayOf##MYTYPE
{
MYTYPE arrayOfItems[MYARRAYSIZE];
};
inline void Set##MYTYPE##Item(struct ArrayOf##MyType * container, int which, MYTYPE item)
{
container[which] = item;
}
[... and so on for various other MYTYPE-specific methods ...]
... then my .c files could do something like:
#define MYTYPE int
#define MYARRAYSIZE 10
#include "MyContainerImplementation.h"
#undef MYARRAYSIZE
#undef MYTYPE
#define MYTYPE short
#define MYARRAYSIZE 15
#include "MyContainerImplementation.h"
#undef MYARRAYSIZE
#undef MYTYPE
struct ArrayOfint myInts;
struct ArrayOfshort myShorts;
SetintItem(&myInts, 5, 12);
SetshortItem(&myShorts, 3, 2);
[...]
... and end up with the container "class" and its associated methods implemented for each data-type, without having to manually write a new implementation of the container "class" each time.
Yes, it was extremely ugly -- but not as ugly as having to manually write out thousands of lines of redundant container-code would have been. (The real container-implementation-header-file implemented a hash table and was several hundred lines long)
Without include guards or #pragma once the compiler would have to maintain a list of included files. This is not easy, because of different possible paths to these files (and #pragma once doesn't completely solve this) and would be expecting a bit much of the original C compilers, which had to work with very limited memory.
What's true today is not necessarily true when C came about and the C pre-processor, upon which the C++ one is based, was created.
#pragma once is just a step towards having proper C++ modules so this annoying historical legacy is finally eliminated.
Yes, it's valid to include a file multiple times, and yes, each time it's included it can behave in entirely different ways. This is why making pre-compiled headers is a huge headache for compiler developers.
Guard blocks or #pragma once are included in order to prevent a file from being included multiple times.
#pragma once, while supported on most compilers, is not an official part of the c++ standard, and may not work on every compiler. You can use a guard block, which will work on any compiler. An example of a guard block in the file MyClass.hpp would be:
#ifndef MYCLASS_HPP
#define MYCLASS_HPP
//Code here
#endif
If I want to define a value only if it is not defined, I do something like this :
#ifndef THING
#define THING OTHER_THING
#endif
What if THING is a typedef'd identifier, and not defined? I would like to do something like this:
#ifntypedef thing_type
typedef uint32_t thing_type
#endif
The issue arose because I wanted to check to see if an external library has already defined the boolean type, but I'd be open to hearing a more general solution.
There is no such thing in the language, nor is it needed. Within a single project you should not have the same typedef alias referring to different types ever, as that is a violation of the ODR, and if you are going to create the same alias for the same type then just do it. The language allows you to perform the same typedef as many times as you wish and will usually catch that particular ODR (within the same translation unit):
typedef int myint;
typedef int myint; // OK: myint is still an alias to int
//typedef double myint; // Error: myint already defined as alias to int
If what you are intending to do is implementing a piece of functionality for different types by using a typedef to determine which to use, then you should be looking at templates rather than typedefs.
C++ does not provide any mechanism for code to test presence of typedef, the best you can have is something like this:
#ifndef THING_TYPE_DEFINED
#define THING_TYPE_DEFINED
typedef uint32_t thing_type
#endif
EDIT:
As #David, is correct in his comment, this answers the how? part but importantly misses the why? It can be done in the way above, If you want to do it et all, but important it you probably don't need to do it anyways, #David's answer & comment explains the details, and I think that answers the question correctly.
No there is no such facility in C++ at preprocessing stage. At the max can do is
#ifndef thing_type
#define thing_type uint32_t
#endif
Though this is not a good coding practice and I don't suggest it.
Preprocessor directives (like #define) are crude text replacement tools, which know nothing about the programming language, so they can't act on any language-level definitions.
There are two approaches to making sure a type is only defined once:
Structure the code so that each definition has its place, and there's no need for multiple definitions
#define a preprocessor macro alongside the type, and use #ifndef to check for the macro definition before defining the type.
The first option will generally lead to more maintainable code. The second could cause subtle bugs, if you accidentally end up with different definitions of the type within one program.
As other have already said, there are no such thing, but if you try to create an alias to different type, you'll get a compilation error :
typedef int myInt;
typedef int myInt; // ok, same alias
typedef float myInt; // error
However, there is a thing called ctag for finding where a typedef is defined.
The problem is actually real PITA, because some APIs or SDKs redefine commonly used things. I had issue that header files for a map processing software (GIS) were redefining TRUE and FALSE (generally used by windows SDK)keywords to integer literals instead of true and false keywords ( obviously, that can break SOMETHING). And yes, famous joke "#define true false" is relevant.
define would never feel a typedef or constant declared in C\C++ code because preprocessor doesn't analyze code, it only scans for # statements. And it modifies code prior to giving it to syntax analyzer. SO, in general, it's not possible.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/5xkf423c.aspx?f=255&MSPPError=-2147217396
That one isn't portable so far, though there were known request to implement it in GCC. I think, it also counts as "extension" in MSVC. It's a compiler statement, not a preprocessor statement, so it will not "feel" defined macros, it would detect only typedefs outside of function body. "full type" there means that it will react on full definition, ignoring statements like "class SomeClass;". Use it at own risk.
Edit: apparently it also supported on MacOS now and by Intel comiler with -fms-dialect flag (AIX\Linux?)
This might not directly answer the question, but serve as a possible solution to your problem.
Why not try something like this?
#define DEFAULT_TYPE int // just for argument's sake
#ifndef MY_COOL_TYPE
#define MY_COOL_TYPE DEFAULT_TYPE
#endif
typedef MY_COOL_TYPE My_Cool_Datatype_t;
Then if you want to customize the type, you can either define MY_COOL_TYPE somewhere above this (like in a "configure" header that is included at the top of this header) or pass it as a command line argument when compiling (as far as I know you can do this with GCC and LLVM, maybe others, too).
No there is nothing like what you wanted. I have had your same problem with libraries that include their owntypedefs for things like bool. It gets to be a problem when they just don't care about what you use for bool or if any other libs might be doing the same thing!!
So here's what I do. I edit the header file for the libs that do such things and find the typedef bool and add some code like this:
#ifdef USE_LIBNAME_BOOL
typedef unsigned char bool; // This is the lib's bool implementation
#else
#include <stdbool.h>
#endif
Notice that I included if I didn't want to use the libs' own bool typdef. This means that you need C99 support or later.
As mentioned before this is not included in the C++ standard, but you might be able to use autotools to get the same functionality.
You could use the ac_cxx_bool macro to make sure bool is defined (or different routines for different datatypes).
The solution I ended up using was including stdbool.h. I know this doesn't solve the question of how to check if a typedef is already defined, but it does let me ensure that the boolean type is defined.
This is a good question. C and Unix have a history together, and there are a lot of Unix C typedefs not available on a non-POSIX platform such as Windows (shhh Cygwin people). You'll need to decide how to answer this question whenever you're trying to write C that's portable between these systems (shhhhh Cygwin people).
If cross-platform portability is what you need this for, then knowing the platform-specific preprocessor macro for the compilation target is sometimes helpful. E.g. windows has the _WIN32 preprocessor macro defined - it's 1 whenever the compilation target is 32-bit ARM, 64-bit ARM, x86, or x64. But it's presence also informs us that we're on a Windows machine. This means that e.g. ssize_t won't be available (ssize_t, not size_t). So you might want to do something like:
#ifdef _WIN32
typedef long ssize_t;
#endif
By the way, people in this thread have commented about a similar pattern that is formally called a guard. You see it in header files (i.e. interfaces or ".h" files) a lot to prevent multiple inclusion. You'll hear about header guards.
/// #file poop.h
#ifndef POOP_H
#define POOP_H
void* poop(Poop* arg);
#endif
Now I can include the header file in the implementation file poop.c and some other file like main.c, and I know they will always compile successfully and without multiple inclusion, whether they are compiled together or individually, thanks to the header guards.
Salty seadogs write their header guards programmatically or with C++11 function-like macros. If you like books I recommend Jens Gustedt's "Modern C".
It is not transparent but you can try to compile it one time without typedef (just using the alias), and see if it compiles or not.
There is not such things.
It is possible to desactivate this duplicate_typedef compilator error.
"typedef name has already been declared (with same type)"
On a another hand, for some standardized typedef definition there is often a preprocessor macro defined like __bool_true_false_are_defined for bool that can be used.
I am using both the JUCE Library and a number of Boost headers in my code. Juce defines "T" as a macro (groan), and Boost often uses "T" in it's template definitions. The result is that if you somehow include the JUCE headers before the Boost headers the preprocessor expands the JUCE macro in the Boost code, and then the compiler gets hopelessly lost.
Keeping my includes in the right order isn't hard most of the time, but it can get tricky when you have a JUCE class that includes some other classes and somewhere up the chain one file includes Boost, and if any of the files before it needed a JUCE include you're in trouble.
My initial hope at fixing this was to
#undef T
before any includes for Boost. But the problem is, if I don't re-define it, then other code gets confused that "T" is not declared.
I then thought that maybe I could do some circular #define trickery like so:
// some includes up here
#define ___T___ T
#undef T
// include boost headers here
#define T ___T___
#undef ___T___
Ugly, but I thought it may work.
Sadly no. I get errors in places using "T" as a macro that
'___T___' was not declared in this scope.
Is there a way to make these two libraries work reliably together?
As greyfade pointed out, your ___T___ trick doesn't work because the preprocessor is a pretty simple creature. An alternative approach is to use pragma directives:
// juice includes here
#pragma push_macro("T")
#undef T
// include boost headers here
#pragma pop_macro("T")
That should work in MSVC++ and GCC has added support for pop_macro and push_macro for compatibility with it. Technically it is implementation-dependent though, but I don't think there's a standard way of temporarily suppressing the definition.
Can you wrap the offending library in another include and trap the #define T inside?
eg:
JUICE_wrapper.h:
#include "juice.h"
#undef T
main.cpp:
#include "JUICE_wrapper.h"
#include "boost.h"
rest of code....
I then thought that maybe I could do some circular #define trickery like so:
The C Preprocessor doesn't work this way. Preprocessor symbols aren't defined in the same sense that a symbol is given meaning when, e.g., you define a function.
It might help to think of the preprocessor as a text-replace engine. When a symbol is defined, it's treated as a straight-up text-replace until the end of the file or until it's undefined. Its value is not stored anywhere, and so, can't be copied. Therefore, the only way to restore the definition of T after you've #undefed it is to completely reproduce its value in a new #define later in your code.
The best you can do is to simply not use Boost or petition the developers of JUCE to not use T as a macro. (Or, worst case, fix it yourself by changing the name of the macro.)