I want to know if we can have recursive macros in C/C++? If yes, please provide a sample example.
Second thing: why am I not able to execute the below code? What is the mistake I am doing? Is it because of recursive macros?
# define pr(n) ((n==1)? 1 : pr(n-1))
void main ()
{
int a=5;
cout<<"result: "<< pr(5) <<endl;
getch();
}
Macros don't directly expand recursively, but there are workarounds. When the preprocessor scans and expands pr(5):
pr(5)
^
it creates a disabling context, so that when it sees pr again:
((5==1)? 1 : pr(5-1))
^
it becomes painted blue, and can no longer expand, no matter what we try. But we can prevent our macro from becoming painted blue by using deferred expressions and some indirection:
# define EMPTY(...)
# define DEFER(...) __VA_ARGS__ EMPTY()
# define OBSTRUCT(...) __VA_ARGS__ DEFER(EMPTY)()
# define EXPAND(...) __VA_ARGS__
# define pr_id() pr
# define pr(n) ((n==1)? 1 : DEFER(pr_id)()(n-1))
So now it will expand like this:
pr(5) // Expands to ((5==1)? 1 : pr_id ()(5 -1))
Which is perfect, because pr was never painted blue. We just need to apply another scan to make it expand further:
EXPAND(pr(5)) // Expands to ((5==1)? 1 : ((5 -1==1)? 1 : pr_id ()(5 -1 -1)))
We can apply two scans to make it expand further:
EXPAND(EXPAND(pr(5))) // Expands to ((5==1)? 1 : ((5 -1==1)? 1 : ((5 -1 -1==1)? 1 : pr_id ()(5 -1 -1 -1))))
However, since there is no termination condition, we can never apply enough scans. I'm not sure what you want to accomplish, but if you are curious on how to create recursive macros, here is an example of how to create a recursive repeat macro.
First a macro to apply a lot of scans:
#define EVAL(...) EVAL1(EVAL1(EVAL1(__VA_ARGS__)))
#define EVAL1(...) EVAL2(EVAL2(EVAL2(__VA_ARGS__)))
#define EVAL2(...) EVAL3(EVAL3(EVAL3(__VA_ARGS__)))
#define EVAL3(...) EVAL4(EVAL4(EVAL4(__VA_ARGS__)))
#define EVAL4(...) EVAL5(EVAL5(EVAL5(__VA_ARGS__)))
#define EVAL5(...) __VA_ARGS__
Next, a concat macro which is useful for pattern matching:
#define CAT(a, ...) PRIMITIVE_CAT(a, __VA_ARGS__)
#define PRIMITIVE_CAT(a, ...) a ## __VA_ARGS__
Increment and decrement counters:
#define INC(x) PRIMITIVE_CAT(INC_, x)
#define INC_0 1
#define INC_1 2
#define INC_2 3
#define INC_3 4
#define INC_4 5
#define INC_5 6
#define INC_6 7
#define INC_7 8
#define INC_8 9
#define INC_9 9
#define DEC(x) PRIMITIVE_CAT(DEC_, x)
#define DEC_0 0
#define DEC_1 0
#define DEC_2 1
#define DEC_3 2
#define DEC_4 3
#define DEC_5 4
#define DEC_6 5
#define DEC_7 6
#define DEC_8 7
#define DEC_9 8
Some macros useful for conditionals:
#define CHECK_N(x, n, ...) n
#define CHECK(...) CHECK_N(__VA_ARGS__, 0,)
#define NOT(x) CHECK(PRIMITIVE_CAT(NOT_, x))
#define NOT_0 ~, 1,
#define COMPL(b) PRIMITIVE_CAT(COMPL_, b)
#define COMPL_0 1
#define COMPL_1 0
#define BOOL(x) COMPL(NOT(x))
#define IIF(c) PRIMITIVE_CAT(IIF_, c)
#define IIF_0(t, ...) __VA_ARGS__
#define IIF_1(t, ...) t
#define IF(c) IIF(BOOL(c))
#define EAT(...)
#define EXPAND(...) __VA_ARGS__
#define WHEN(c) IF(c)(EXPAND, EAT)
Putting it all together we can create a repeat macro:
#define REPEAT(count, macro, ...) \
WHEN(count) \
( \
OBSTRUCT(REPEAT_INDIRECT) () \
( \
DEC(count), macro, __VA_ARGS__ \
) \
OBSTRUCT(macro) \
( \
DEC(count), __VA_ARGS__ \
) \
)
#define REPEAT_INDIRECT() REPEAT
//An example of using this macro
#define M(i, _) i
EVAL(REPEAT(8, M, ~)) // 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
So, yes with some workarounds you can have recursive macros in C/C++.
Your compiler probably provides an option to only pre-process, not actually compile. This is useful if you are trying to find a problem in a macro. For example using g++ -E:
> g++ -E recursiveMacro.c
# 1 "recursiveMacro.c"
# 1 "<built-in>"
# 1 "<command line>"
# 1 "recursiveMacro.c"
void main ()
{
int a=5;
cout<<"result: "<< ((5==1)? 1 : pr(5 -1)) <<endl;
getch();
}
As you can see, it is not recursive. pr(x) is only replaced once during pre-processing. The important thing to remember is that all the pre-processor does is blindly replace one text string with another, it doesn't actually evaluate expressions like (x == 1).
The reason your code will not compile is that pr(5 -1) was not replaced by the pre-processor, so it ends up in the source as a call to an undefined function.
You're not supposed to have recursive macros in C or C++.
The relevant language from the C++ standard, section 16.3.4 paragraph 2:
If the name of the macro being replaced is found during this scan of the replacement list (not including the rest of the source file’s preprocessing tokens), it is not replaced. Furthermore, if any nested replacements encounter the name of the macro being replaced, it is not replaced. These nonreplaced macro name preprocessing tokens are no longer available for further replacement even if they are later (re)examined in contexts in which that macro name preprocessing token would otherwise have been replaced.
There's some wiggle room in this language. With multiple macros that invoke one another, there's a grey area where that wording doesn't quite say what should be done. There is an active issue against the C++ standard regarding this language lawyer problem; see http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#268 .
Ignoring that language lawyer issue, every compiler vendor understands the intent:
Recursive macros are not allowed in C or in C++.
Most likely you are not able to execute it because you can't compile it. Also if it would compile correctly, it would always return 1. Did you mean (n==1)? 1 : n * pr(n-1).
Macros can't be recursive. According to chapter 16.3.4.2 (thanks Loki Astari), if the current macro is found in the replacement list, it is left as is, thus your pr in the definition will not be changed:
If the name of the macro being replaced is found during this scan of
the replacement list (not including the rest of the source file's pre-
processing tokens), it is not replaced. Further, if any nested
replacements encounter the name of the macro being replaced, it is not
replaced. These nonreplaced macro name preprocessing tokens are no
longer available for further replacement even if they are later
(re)examined in contexts in which that macro name preprocessing token
would otherwise have been replaced.
Your call:
cout<<"result: "<< pr(5) <<endl;
was converted by preprocessor into:
cout<<"result: "<< (5==1)? 1 : pr(5-1) <<endl;
During this, the definition of pr macro is 'lost', and compiler shows an error like "‘pr’ was not declared in this scope (fact)" because there is no function named pr.
Use of macros is not encouraged in C++. Why don't you just write a function?
In this case you could even write a template function so it will be resolved in compile time, and will behave as a constant value:
template <int n>
int pr() { pr<n-1>(); }
template <>
int pr<1>() { return 1; }
TLDR.
True recursion itself is easy done by duplicating macros in two names, with each referencing other. But usefulness of this feature is doubtful, because this requires nested conditional macro to make recursion finite. All conditional macro-operators are essentially multiline, because #else and #endif lines must be separate lines (serious cpp limitation), which means, that conditional macro-definitions are impossible by design (thus, recusion itself would be useless).
You can't have recursive macros in C or C++.
Related
is there a way/trick to make a #define directive evaluate some condition?
for example
#define COM_TIME_DO(COND, BODY) \
#if (COND) BODY
#else
#endif
it's ok also to use template but body must be an arbitrary (correct in the context is used to) piece of code, simply just present or not in the source depending of COND.
as it is now the previous code doesn't even compile.
the goal of this question is primarly a better knowledge of the language and what i'm trying to do is define a debug macro system that i can activate selectively on certain parts of code for example:
A.hpp
#define A_TEST_1 1
#define A_TEST_2 0
Class A {
...
COM_TIME_DO(A_TEST_1,
void test_method_1();
)
COM_TIME_DO(A_TEST_2,
void test_method_2();
)
};
A.cpp
COM_TIME_DO(A_TEST_1,
void A::test_method_1() {
...
})
COM_TIME_DO(A_TEST_2,
void A::test_method_2() {
...
})
i was just asking if it was POSSIBLE because i like it more than the #if ... #endif.
If the expression of the condition will always expand to 1 or 0 (or some other known set of values) it is possible to implement such a macro.
#define VALUE_0(...)
#define VALUE_1(...) __VA_ARGS__
#define COM_TIME_DO_IN(A, ...) VALUE_##A(__VA_ARGS__)
#define COM_TIME_DO(A, ...) COM_TIME_DO_IN(A, __VA_ARGS__)
However, do not use such code in real life. Use #if and write clear, readable and maintainable code that is easy to understand for anyone.
is there a way/trick to make a #define directive evaluate some condition?
This depends on what the condition actually is.
Since you mentioned #if I'm assuming you'd like to evaluate an integer constant expressions.
Doing this in a macro single macro isn't possible, without implementation defined _Pragmas, but you can do it with an include + a macro definition:
#define COM_TIME_DO ((1 > 2), true, false)
#include "com-time-do.h"
// ^-- generates: false
#define COM_TIME_DO ((1 == 1), true_func();, false_func();)
#include "com-time-do.h"
// ^-- generates: true_func();
where com-time-do.h is defined as follows:
// com-time-do.h
#define SCAN(...) __VA_ARGS__
#define SLOT_AT_COND(a,b,c) a
#define SLOT_AT_THEN(a,b,c) b
#define SLOT_AT_ELSE(a,b,c) c
#if SCAN(SLOT_AT_COND COM_TIME_DO)
SCAN(SLOT_AT_THEN COM_TIME_DO)
#else
SCAN(SLOT_AT_ELSE COM_TIME_DO)
#endif
#undef COM_TIME_DO
Although, as KamilCuk said, please write reasonable code and don't use this.
I found a page that it is explained how identifier-token comparison can be implemented using c preprocessor directives. This could be done by some macros like this:
#define COMPARE_foo(x) x
#define COMPARE_bar(x) x
#define PRIMITIVE_COMPARE(x, y) IS_PAREN \
( \
COMPARE_ ## x ( COMPARE_ ## y) (()) \
)
PRIMITIVE_COMPARE(foo, bar) // expands to 0
PRIMITIVE_COMPARE(bar, bar) // expands to 1
Which IS_PAREN checks that it is completely expanded or not(which occurs just when two macros are different because of painting blue).
Now I am looking for a similar command in Boost Preprocessor. I want to have a list of accepted types of a macro and if the macro called with one of this type it expands to what it must otherwise it does not anything. My pseudo code is something like this:
#define ACCEPTED_TYPE (float)(int)(string)
#define Macro(x) // If one of accepted type do a otherwise do nothing
If boost preprocessor has not the exact solution what is your suggestion to make implementation easier.
I'm writing a library that uses the preprocessor meta-programming Boost.Preprocessor. One macro looks kind of like this:
#define MY_MACRO(my_type) return some_function<my_type>()
Now, the problem is that I need to remove the return if my_type is void. I checked Boost.Preprocessor, but I didn't see anything that could help me. How do I accomplish this? Something like:
#define MY_MACRO(my_type) BOOST_PP_IF(\
TYPE_EQUALS(my_type,void),return,BOOST_PP_EMPTY()) some_function<my_type>()
Unfortunately, boost preprocessor doesn't have an easy way to compare two tokens. Of course for your case you may just need to use some simple detection. This should work on C99 preprocessors:
#define CHECK_N(x, n, ...) n
#define CHECK(...) CHECK_N(__VA_ARGS__, 0,)
#define PROBE(x) x, 1,
#define IS_VOID(x) CHECK(BOOST_PP_CAT(IS_VOID_, x))
#define IS_VOID_void PROBE(~)
However, this won't work for parenthesis, for varidiac data(such as types with commas in them), or pointers. So here are the ones that work and don't work:
IS_VOID(int) // 0
IS_VOID(void) // 1
IS_VOID((void)) // Compile error
IS_VOID(std::map<int, int>) // Compile error
IS_VOID(void*) // Returns 1, but should return 0
You could try to work around all these cases or you could use a more general comparison macro(like the one here):
#define IS_PAREN(x) CHECK(IS_PAREN_PROBE x)
#define IS_PAREN_PROBE(...) PROBE(~)
#define IS_COMPARABLE(x) IS_PAREN( CAT(COMPARE_, x) (()) )
#define NOT_EQUAL(x, y) \
IIF(BITAND(IS_COMPARABLE(x))(IS_COMPARABLE(y)) ) \
( \
PRIMITIVE_COMPARE, \
1 EAT \
))(x, y)
#define EQUAL(x, y) COMPL(NOT_EQUAL(x, y))
#define COMPARE_void(x) x
#define IS_VOID(x) EQUAL(x, void)
Which could be updated to use boost preprocessor components. This should work for more cases, but still won't work with parenthesis(which may not be a problem).
Finally, this is just a comparison on the textual level, so if the user has typedefed void, it will incorrectly return false:
typedef void my_void;
IS_VOID(my_void) // Returns 0
If you are using the detection technique, you could allow the user to extend it for user-defined voids, like so:
#define IS_VOID(x) CHECK(BOOST_PP_CAT(IS_VOID_, x))
#define IS_VOID_void PROBE(~)
// User-defined void
#define IS_VOID_my_void PROBE(~)
I want to create a recursive Macro the will create the "next" class.
Example:
#define PRINTME(indexNum) class m_##(indexNum+1) { }
The indexNum + 1 is evaluated as an int, and won't concatenate to the class name.
How can I cause the compiler to evaluate that, before concatenating?
If you want to generate unique class names every time the PRINTME is invoked then, following is one way:
#define CONCATE1(X,Y) X##Y
#define CONCATE(X,Y) CONCATE1(X,Y)
#define PRINTME class CONCATE(m_,__COUNTER__) {}
__COUNTER__ is an extension in gcc and I am not sure if it's present in other compilers. It's guaranteed that compiler will add 1 every time this macro is invoked.
(In this case, you cannot use __LINE__ or __FILE__ effectively.)
Demo.
The simple answer is that you can't. The preprocessor generally deals in text and tokens; the only place arithmetic is carried out in in #if and #elif directives.
Also, macro expansion isn't recursive. During expansion, the macro being expanded is disabled, and is not available for further substitution.
Well it is doable, based on your motivation and ability to endure ugly code. First off define increment macro:
#define PLUS_ONE(x) PLUS_ONE_##x
#define PLUS_ONE_0 1
#define PLUS_ONE_1 2
#define PLUS_ONE_2 3
#define PLUS_ONE_3 4
#define PLUS_ONE_4 5
#define PLUS_ONE_5 6
#define PLUS_ONE_7 8
#define PLUS_ONE_8 9
#define PLUS_ONE_9 10
// and so on...
You can't just use PLUS_ONE(x) in concatenation operation, since preprocessor won't expand it. There is a way, however - you can abuse the fact that the preprocessor expands variadic arguments.
// pass to variadic macro to expand an argument
#define PRINTME(indexNum) PRINTME_PRIMITIVE(PLUS_ONE(indexNum))
// do concatenation
#define PRINTME_PRIMITIVE(...) class m_ ## __VA_ARGS__ { }
Done!
PRINTME(1); // expands to class m_2 { };
Have you considered using templates instead?
I know C++ template metaprogramming is Turing-complete. Does the same thing hold for preprocessor metaprogramming?
Well macros don't directly expand recursively, but there are ways we can work around this.
The easiest way of doing recursion in the preprocessor is to use a deferred expression. A deferred expression is an expression that requires more scans to fully expand:
#define EMPTY()
#define DEFER(id) id EMPTY()
#define OBSTRUCT(...) __VA_ARGS__ DEFER(EMPTY)()
#define EXPAND(...) __VA_ARGS__
#define A() 123
A() // Expands to 123
DEFER(A)() // Expands to A () because it requires one more scan to fully expand
EXPAND(DEFER(A)()) // Expands to 123, because the EXPAND macro forces another scan
Why is this important? Well when a macro is scanned and expanding, it creates a disabling context. This disabling context will cause a token, that refers to the currently expanding macro, to be painted blue. Thus, once its painted blue, the macro will no longer expand. This is why macros don't expand recursively. However, a disabling context only exists during one scan, so by deferring an expansion we can prevent our macros from becoming painted blue. We will just need to apply more scans to the expression. We can do that using this EVAL macro:
#define EVAL(...) EVAL1(EVAL1(EVAL1(__VA_ARGS__)))
#define EVAL1(...) EVAL2(EVAL2(EVAL2(__VA_ARGS__)))
#define EVAL2(...) EVAL3(EVAL3(EVAL3(__VA_ARGS__)))
#define EVAL3(...) EVAL4(EVAL4(EVAL4(__VA_ARGS__)))
#define EVAL4(...) EVAL5(EVAL5(EVAL5(__VA_ARGS__)))
#define EVAL5(...) __VA_ARGS__
Now if we want to implement a REPEAT macro using recursion, first we need some increment and decrement operators to handle state:
#define CAT(a, ...) PRIMITIVE_CAT(a, __VA_ARGS__)
#define PRIMITIVE_CAT(a, ...) a ## __VA_ARGS__
#define INC(x) PRIMITIVE_CAT(INC_, x)
#define INC_0 1
#define INC_1 2
#define INC_2 3
#define INC_3 4
#define INC_4 5
#define INC_5 6
#define INC_6 7
#define INC_7 8
#define INC_8 9
#define INC_9 9
#define DEC(x) PRIMITIVE_CAT(DEC_, x)
#define DEC_0 0
#define DEC_1 0
#define DEC_2 1
#define DEC_3 2
#define DEC_4 3
#define DEC_5 4
#define DEC_6 5
#define DEC_7 6
#define DEC_8 7
#define DEC_9 8
Next we need a few more macros to do logic:
#define CHECK_N(x, n, ...) n
#define CHECK(...) CHECK_N(__VA_ARGS__, 0,)
#define NOT(x) CHECK(PRIMITIVE_CAT(NOT_, x))
#define NOT_0 ~, 1,
#define COMPL(b) PRIMITIVE_CAT(COMPL_, b)
#define COMPL_0 1
#define COMPL_1 0
#define BOOL(x) COMPL(NOT(x))
#define IIF(c) PRIMITIVE_CAT(IIF_, c)
#define IIF_0(t, ...) __VA_ARGS__
#define IIF_1(t, ...) t
#define IF(c) IIF(BOOL(c))
#define EAT(...)
#define EXPAND(...) __VA_ARGS__
#define WHEN(c) IF(c)(EXPAND, EAT)
Now with all these macros we can write a recursive REPEAT macro. We use a REPEAT_INDIRECT macro to refer back to itself recursively. This prevents the macro from being painted blue, since it will expand on a different scan(and using a different disabling context). We use OBSTRUCT here, which will defer the expansion twice. This is necessary because the conditional WHEN applies one scan already.
#define REPEAT(count, macro, ...) \
WHEN(count) \
( \
OBSTRUCT(REPEAT_INDIRECT) () \
( \
DEC(count), macro, __VA_ARGS__ \
) \
OBSTRUCT(macro) \
( \
DEC(count), __VA_ARGS__ \
) \
)
#define REPEAT_INDIRECT() REPEAT
//An example of using this macro
#define M(i, _) i
EVAL(REPEAT(8, M, ~)) // 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Now this example is limited to 10 repeats, because of limitations of the counter. Just like a repeat counter in a computer would be limited by the finite memory. Multiple repeat counters could be combined together to workaround this limitation, just like in a computer. Furthermore, we could define a FOREVER macro:
#define FOREVER() \
? \
DEFER(FOREVER_INDIRECT) () ()
#define FOREVER_INDIRECT() FOREVER
// Outputs question marks forever
EVAL(FOREVER())
This will try to output ? forever, but will eventually stop because there are no more scans being applied. Now the question is, if we gave it an infinite number of scans would this algorithm complete? This is known as the halting problem, and Turing completeness is necessary to prove the undecidability of the halting problem. So as you can see, the preprocessor can act as a Turing complete language, but instead of being limited to the finite memory of a computer it is instead limited by the finite number of scans applied.
No. The C++ preprocessor does not allow for unlimited state. You only have a finite number of on/off states, plus a include stack. This makes it a push-down automaton, not a turing machine (this ignores also the fact that preprocessor recursion is limited - but so is template recursion).
However, if you bend your definitions a bit, this is possible by invoking the preprocessor multiple times - by allowing the preprocessor to generate a program which re-invokes the preprocessor, and looping externally, it is indeed possible to make a turing machine with the preprocessor. The linked example uses C, but it should be adaptable into C++ easily enough.