I'm a bit new to c++ and I have a coding assignment with a lot of files already done, but I noticed that VS2012 seems to have an issue with the following statement:
typedef std::uint32_t identifier;
However, it seems that changing it to
typedef uint32_t identifier;
gets rid of the error. There are no includes and this is in the header file. I noticed that the definition is in stdint.h. If that's the case, why is this code acceptable outside of VS (ie. compiles properly using g++) but is unacceptable in VS? Can anyone please explain this?
The difference is that one is inside a namespace and the other isn't. Otherwise they should be the same. The first is supposed to be the C version and the second is the C++ version. Before C++11 it was mandated that including the prefixed versions instead of the C standard library version brings in all C definitions inside the standard namespace. In C++11 this restriction has been relaxed as this is not always possible.
It could be that your compiler defines this type implicitly. In any case, you should include cstdint to make the version in the namespace std available (and possibly the one in the global namespace). Including stdint.h should just make the unqualified version available.
Earlier version of Visual Studio shipped without this header, so this is bound to be troublesome.
Due all this madness, most people will fall back on a third-party implementation such as boost/cstdint.hpp.
Edit: They are the same and serve the same purpose. As a rule: If you want to use the version in the std namespace, include cstdint. If you want the one in the global namespace, include stdint.h. For C++ it is recommended to use the one in the std namespace. As a rule: Always include what you use and don't rely on other headers including things for you.
uint32_t (aka ::uint32_t i.e. the one in the global namespace) is declared in <stdint.h>. That header might also declare it in namespace std, as std::uint32_t, but it's not required to do so.
std::uint32_t (i.e. the one in namespace std) is declared in <cstdint>. That header might also declare it in the global namespace, as ::uint32_t, but it's not required to do so.
If that's the case, why is this code acceptable outside of VS (ie. compiles properly using g++) but is unacceptable in VS? Can anyone please explain this?
If you want to use std::uint32_t then you must #include <cstdint>, or the code may not compile. If it does compile with G++ then presumably some other header indirectly includes <cstdint> but you shouldn't rely on that, include the right headers for the names you use.
Related
I am a newbie in c++, and I suspect, that, of course the question relates not only to tuple.
So, I've watched a tutorial with roughly this code:
#include <tuple>
std::tuple<...> t(...)
Why #include <tuple>? Especially, given the fact that we explicitly write std::tuple. The code compiles without that #include line just well...
Because <tuple> is a header file which contains the tuple class inside the namespace std. Just because you're explicitliy saying std:: doesn't mean the compiler will just be able to find it if it's not included.
The reason it worked for you in this case is probably because another header you have included already includes <tuple> and thus your code includes <tuple> indirectly or because the compiler you're building with includes it automatically. This is not guaranteed by the standard and should not be relied upon. Always include the headers you'll need to make your code portable.
You always should include the specific headers for any types that you use in your code.
The code compiles without that #include line just well...
That your code compiles without is just by chance, because it might have been included by another standard header you use in your program, and not guaranteed by the standard, and thus not portable.
Especially, given the fact that we explicitly write std::tuple.
The explicit use of the std:: namespace doesn't have any significance about that rule.
You should also always be explicit about using classes or types from the std namespace to prevent getting into ambiguity troubles.
Related stuff:
Why is “using namespace std;” considered bad practice?
Why should I not #include ?
How do I include the string header?
In C++ you need to include the header for everything you use. The std:: is about the namespace, it's completely different.
Apparently your compiler is smart enough to deal with it, but most of the compilers won't.
Some standard headers shall include other standard headers according to the C++ Standard. For example the header <algorithm> must include the header <initializer_list>.
However implementations are allowed to include standard headers in other standard headers at their discretion.
You should not rely on this because your program compiled with one compiler will not compile using another compiler.
Even if one standard header is included in another standard header according to the requirements of the C++ Standard nevertheless it is a good practice to include such a header explicitly because the user of the program (some other programmer) should bother about dependencies of the headers and will be free to include or exclude other headers.
It seems on XCode I need to use std::size_t instead of just size_t on Visual C++. But this is a pain as I don't really want to have to #include <cstddef> and change every size_t to std::size_t in my code... in my Windows code size_t just works without including any additional files.
Is there a way to make my existing code work in XCode, (maybe through the .pch file?) or are GCC/MSVC++ fundamentally different in this regard and my code needs to use std::size_t in order to be cross-platform?
According to the C++03 standard, 17.4.1.2.4:
Except as noted in clauses 18 through 27, the contents of each header cname shall be the same as that of the corresponding header name.h, as specified in ISO/IEC 9899:1990 Programming Languages C (Clause 7), or ISO/IEC:1990 Programming Languages—C AMENDMENT 1: C Integrity, (Clause 7), as appropriate, as if by inclusion. In the C++ Standard Library, however, the declarations and definitions (except for names which are defined as macros in C) are within namespace scope (3.3.5) of the namespace std.
In other words, by choosing to use <cstddef> instead of <stddef.h>, you're specifically asking for the type size_t to be within the namespace std.
So, here are the choices:
Use <stddef.h> instead, so size_t is in the top-level namespace, as suggested by Jesse Good.
Use <cstddef> and use std::size_t.
Use <cstddef> and use a using declaration to pull size_t into the top-level namespace, as suggested by cnicutar.
Of course you could rely on the fact that one particular version of one compiler/library/platform lets you get away with it, or write different code for each platform, or wrap the whole thing up with autoconf, or write a code generator or sed-based preprocessor, or whatever… but why?
Perhaps saying this somewhere near the top ?
using std::size_t;
Use #include <stddef.h>.
So, what's the difference between #include <stddef.h> and #include <cstddef>?
<cstddef> is a C++ header and is guaranteed to define all symbols in the std namespace and also may define things in the global namespace.
<stddef.h>is a C header and is guaranteed to define all symbols in the global namespace and may also define things in the std namespace.
So, as you said on Visual Studio, size_t can be used because it injects size_t into the global namespace for you (possibly by already including "stddef.h"). If you want that to work on any compiler include stddef.h.
(However, as a pure C++ fan, I personally prefer std::size_t).
In what cases should we include cassert?
In short, don't use it; use <assert.h>.
C++11 removed any formal guarantee of a "c...." header not polluting the global namespace.
It was never an in-practice guarantee, and now it's not even a formal guarantee.
Hence, with C++11 there is no longer any conceivable advantage in using the "c...." header variants, while there is the distinct and clear disadvantage that code that works well with one compiler and version of that compiler, may fail to compile with another compiler or version, due to e.g. name collisions or different overload selection in the global namespace.
SO, while cassert was pretty meaningless in C++03 (you can't put a macro in a namespace), it is totally meaningless -- even as a special case of a general scheme -- in C++11.
Addendum, Dec 22 2013:
The standard defines each C++ C header <X.h> header in terms of the <cX> header, which in turn is defined in terms of the corresponding C library header.
C++11 §D.5/2:
“Every C header, each of which has a name of the form name.h, behaves as if each name placed in the standard library namespace by the corresponding cname header is placed within the global namespace scope.”
C++11 §D.5/3 (non-normative example):
“The header <cstdlib> assuredly provides its declarations and definitions within the namespace std. It may also provide these names within the global namespace. The header <stdlib.h> assuredly provides the same declarations and definitions within the global namespace, much as in the C Standard. It may also provide these names within the namespace std.”
Stack Overflow user C.R.’s comment made me aware that some versions of g++, such as MinGW g++ 4.7.2, are quite non-standard with respect to the <X.h> headers, lacking the overloads of e.g. sin that the C++ standard requires:
I already knew that MinGW g++ 4.7.2 also entirely lacks functions such as swprintf, and that it has ditto shortcomings in the pure C++ library such as lacking C++11 std::to_string. However, the information about it lacking the C function overloads was new to me.
In practice the lacking overloads with g++ means
ignoring the g++ issue, or
avoiding using the missing g++ overloads,
e.g. using only double sin( double ), or
using the std namespace overloads
(one then needs to include <cmath> to guarantee their presence with g++).
In order to use the g++ std namespace overloads unqualified, one practical approach is to define headers wrappers for this compiler. I've used that approach to address g++ shortcomings wrt. to the printf family. For as David Wheeler once remarked, “All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection”…
Then things can be arranged so that standard code that uses g++'s missing overloads, also compiles with g++. This adjusts the compiler to the standard, with a fixed amount of code.
Just like any other header file, you #include <cassert> when you use something declared in that header file, such as assert().
See an easily accessible reference
#include <iostream>
// uncomment to disable assert()
// #define NDEBUG
#include <cassert>
int main()
{
assert(2+2==4);
std::cout << "Execution continues past the first assert\n";
assert(2+2==5);
std::cout << "Execution continues past the second assert\n";
}
assert.h defines one macro function that can be used as a standard debugging tool.
So this is something that I've always wondered but was never quite sure about. So it is strictly a matter of curiosity, not a real problem.
As far as I understand, whenyou do something like #include <cstdlib> everything (except macros of course) are declared in the std:: namespace. Every implementation that I've ever seen does this by doing something like the following:
#include <stdlib.h>
namespace std {
using ::abort;
// etc....
}
Which of course has the effect of things being in both the global namespace and std. Is this behavior guaranteed? Or is it possible that an implementation could put these things in std but not in the global namespace? The only way I can think of to do that would be to have your libstdc++ implement every c function itself placing them in std directly instead of just including the existing libc headers (because there is no mechanism to remove something from a namespace). Which is of course a lot of effort with little to no benefit.
The essence of my question is, is the following program strictly conforming and guaranteed to work?
#include <cstdio>
int main() {
::printf("hello world\n");
}
EDIT: The closest I've found is this (17.4.1.2p4):
Except as noted in clauses 18 through
27, the contents of each header cname
shall be the same as that of the
corresponding header name.h, as
specified in ISO/IEC 9899:1990
Programming Languages C (Clause 7), or
ISO/IEC:1990 Programming Languages—C
AMENDMENT 1: C Integrity, (Clause 7),
as appropriate, as if by inclusion. In
the C + + Standard Library, however,
the declarations and definitions
(except for names which are defined as
macros in C) are within namespace
scope (3.3.5) of the namespace std.
which to be honest I could interpret either way. "the contents of each header cname shall be the same as that of the corresponding header name.h, as specified in ISO/IEC 9899:1990 Programming Languages C" tells me that they may be required in the global namespace, but "In the C + + Standard Library, however, the declarations and definitions (except for names
which are defined as macros in C) are within namespace scope (3.3.5) of the namespace std." says they are in std (but doesn't specify any other scoped they are in).
Here's a nice synopsis of the situation (with some reality vs. what the standard says) from Stephan T. Lavavej of the MSVC team (http://blogs.msdn.com/vcblog/archive/2008/08/28/the-mallocator.aspx#8904359):
> also, <cstddef>, <cstdlib>, and std::size_t etc should be used!
I used to be very careful about that. C++98 had a splendid dream wherein <cfoo> would declare everything within namespace std, and <foo.h> would include <cfoo> and then drag everything into the global namespace with using-declarations. (This is D.5 [depr.c.headers].)
This was ignored by lots of implementers (some of which had very little control over the C Standard Library headers). So, C++0x has been changed to match reality. As of the N2723 Working Paper, http://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2723.pdf , now <cfoo> is guaranteed to declare everything within namespace std, and may or may not declare things within the global namespace. <foo.h> is the opposite: it is guaranteed to declare everything within the global namespace, and may or may not declare things within namespace std.
In reality and in C++0x, including <cfoo> is no safeguard against everything getting declared in the global namespace anyways. That's why I'm ceasing to bother with <cfoo>.
This was Library Issue 456, http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-defects.html#456 .
(C++0x still deprecates the <foo.h> headers from the C Standard Library, which is hilarious.)
I've never been fond of the <cfoo> headers myself, and found that I've always use <foo.h>. Now I feel like I can stop being anxious about my lack of C++ 'purity' in that regard.
At the present time, no. In fact, even though the code will work with every compiler I now of, it's really not supposed to work at all -- #includeing one of the c* headers is only supposed to give you access to the names inside of namespace std.
Since implementation of this was such a pain (getting it right essentially required duplicating the entire C library as a C++ library in the right namespace), in C++ 0x they've changed the requirements a bit -- your code is now allowed to work, though (at least if memory serves) it's still not required to work.
I cannot speak for the standards, as I have not read them, but one could envision a C++ environment that is not built on top of a C environment, or where the C environment is a compatibility layer on top of underlying C++ APIs. In such a case, these guarantees may not be made. I would be surprised if such an implementation would be prohibited from being a compliant implementation.
The C++ Programming Language : Special Edition states on page 431 that...
For every header < X.h > defining part of the C standard library in the global namespace and also in namespace std, there is a header < cX > defining the same names in the std namespace only.
However, when I use C headers in the < cX > style, I don't need to qualify the namespace. For example...
#include <cmath>
void f() {
double var = sqrt( 17 );
}
This would compile fine. Even though the book says that using the < cX > header defines names in the std namespace only, you are allowed to use those names without qualifying the namespace. What am I missing here?
P.S. Using the GNU.GCC compiler
Stephan T. Lavavej, a member of the MSVC team, addresses the reality of this situation (and some of the refinements to the standard) in this comment on one of his blog postings (http://blogs.msdn.com/vcblog/archive/2008/08/28/the-mallocator.aspx#8904359):
> also, <cstddef>, <cstdlib>, and std::size_t etc should be used!
I used to be very careful about that. C++98 had a splendid dream wherein <cfoo> would declare everything within namespace std, and <foo.h> would include <cfoo> and then drag everything into the global namespace with using-declarations. (This is D.5 [depr.c.headers].)
This was ignored by lots of implementers (some of which had very little control over the C Standard Library headers). So, C++0x has been changed to match reality. As of the N2723 Working Paper, http://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2723.pdf , now <cfoo> is guaranteed to declare everything within namespace std, and may or may not declare things within the global namespace. <foo.h> is the opposite: it is guaranteed to declare everything within the global namespace, and may or may not declare things within namespace std.
In reality and in C++0x, including <cfoo> is no safeguard against everything getting declared in the global namespace anyways. That's why I'm ceasing to bother with <cfoo>.
This was Library Issue 456, http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-defects.html#456 .
(C++0x still deprecates the <foo.h> headers from the C Standard Library, which is hilarious.)
I'm in 100% agreement with Lavavej, except I never tried to be very careful about using the <cfoo> style headers even when I first started using C++ - the standard C ones were just too ingrained - and there was never any real world problem using them (and apparently there was never any real world benefit to using the <cfoo> style headers).
The rule for the C libraries differs from C++ libraries for namespaces
gcc interprets the standard in Gcc docs as
The standard specifies that if one includes the C-style header (<math.h> in this case), the symbols will be available in the global namespace and perhaps in namespace std:: (but this is no longer a firm requirement.) One the other hand, including the C++-style header (<cmath>) guarantees that the entities will be found in namespace std and perhaps in the global namespace.
In the draft C0X++ spec it says in section 17.6.2.3 Headers
It is unspecified whether these names are first declared within the global namespace scope and are then injected
into namespace std by explicit using-declarations
It's hard to fix this without implementing the C library twice. See DR 456, which basically proposes giving up on the problem.
Why do you say "This would compile fine" when it violates the Standard? Who allows you to use those names without qualifying the namespace? Have you tested this on a particular implementation and found that it works?
I strongly advise against using some particular non-standard feature because it happens to work on your compiler of choice. Such things break easily, perhaps with a later version of the same compiler.
You are probably missing using a standards-conformant compiler (or the one you use is configured to be compatible with pre-standard code).