So I finished my first C++ programming assignment and received my grade. But according to the grading, I lost marks for including cpp files instead of compiling and linking them. I'm not too clear on what that means.
Taking a look back at my code, I chose not to create header files for my classes, but did everything in the cpp files (it seemed to work fine without header files...). I'm guessing that the grader meant that I wrote '#include "mycppfile.cpp";' in some of my files.
My reasoning for #include'ing the cpp files was:
- Everything that was supposed to go into the header file was in my cpp file, so I pretended it was like a header file
- In monkey-see-monkey do fashion, I saw that other header files were #include'd in the files, so I did the same for my cpp file.
So what exactly did I do wrong, and why is it bad?
To the best of my knowledge, the C++ standard knows no difference between header files and source files. As far as the language is concerned, any text file with legal code is the same as any other. However, although not illegal, including source files into your program will pretty much eliminate any advantages you would've got from separating your source files in the first place.
Essentially, what #include does is tell the preprocessor to take the entire file you've specified, and copy it into your active file before the compiler gets its hands on it. So when you include all the source files in your project together, there is fundamentally no difference between what you've done, and just making one huge source file without any separation at all.
"Oh, that's no big deal. If it runs, it's fine," I hear you cry. And in a sense, you'd be correct. But right now you're dealing with a tiny tiny little program, and a nice and relatively unencumbered CPU to compile it for you. You won't always be so lucky.
If you ever delve into the realms of serious computer programming, you'll be seeing projects with line counts that can reach millions, rather than dozens. That's a lot of lines. And if you try to compile one of these on a modern desktop computer, it can take a matter of hours instead of seconds.
"Oh no! That sounds horrible! However can I prevent this dire fate?!" Unfortunately, there's not much you can do about that. If it takes hours to compile, it takes hours to compile. But that only really matters the first time -- once you've compiled it once, there's no reason to compile it again.
Unless you change something.
Now, if you had two million lines of code merged together into one giant behemoth, and need to do a simple bug fix such as, say, x = y + 1, that means you have to compile all two million lines again in order to test this. And if you find out that you meant to do a x = y - 1 instead, then again, two million lines of compile are waiting for you. That's many hours of time wasted that could be better spent doing anything else.
"But I hate being unproductive! If only there was some way to compile distinct parts of my codebase individually, and somehow link them together afterwards!" An excellent idea, in theory. But what if your program needs to know what's going on in a different file? It's impossible to completely separate your codebase unless you want to run a bunch of tiny tiny .exe files instead.
"But surely it must be possible! Programming sounds like pure torture otherwise! What if I found some way to separate interface from implementation? Say by taking just enough information from these distinct code segments to identify them to the rest of the program, and putting them in some sort of header file instead? And that way, I can use the #include preprocessor directive to bring in only the information necessary to compile!"
Hmm. You might be on to something there. Let me know how that works out for you.
This is probably a more detailed answer than you wanted, but I think a decent explanation is justified.
In C and C++, one source file is defined as one translation unit. By convention, header files hold function declarations, type definitions and class definitions. The actual function implementations reside in translation units, i.e .cpp files.
The idea behind this is that functions and class/struct member functions are compiled and assembled once, then other functions can call that code from one place without making duplicates. Your functions are declared as "extern" implicitly.
/* Function declaration, usually found in headers. */
/* Implicitly 'extern', i.e the symbol is visible everywhere, not just locally.*/
int add(int, int);
/* function body, or function definition. */
int add(int a, int b)
{
return a + b;
}
If you want a function to be local for a translation unit, you define it as 'static'. What does this mean? It means that if you include source files with extern functions, you will get redefinition errors, because the compiler comes across the same implementation more than once. So, you want all your translation units to see the function declaration but not the function body.
So how does it all get mashed together at the end? That is the linker's job. A linker reads all the object files which is generated by the assembler stage and resolves symbols. As I said earlier, a symbol is just a name. For example, the name of a variable or a function. When translation units which call functions or declare types do not know the implementation for those functions or types, those symbols are said to be unresolved. The linker resolves the unresolved symbol by connecting the translation unit which holds the undefined symbol together with the one which contains the implementation. Phew. This is true for all externally visible symbols, whether they are implemented in your code, or provided by an additional library. A library is really just an archive with reusable code.
There are two notable exceptions. First, if you have a small function, you can make it inline. This means that the generated machine code does not generate an extern function call, but is literally concatenated in-place. Since they usually are small, the size overhead does not matter. You can imagine them to be static in the way they work. So it is safe to implement inline functions in headers. Function implementations inside a class or struct definition are also often inlined automatically by the compiler.
The other exception is templates. Since the compiler needs to see the whole template type definition when instantiating them, it is not possible to decouple the implementation from the definition as with standalone functions or normal classes. Well, perhaps this is possible now, but getting widespread compiler support for the "export" keyword took a long, long time. So without support for 'export', translation units get their own local copies of instantiated templated types and functions, similar to how inline functions work. With support for 'export', this is not the case.
For the two exceptions, some people find it "nicer" to put the implementations of inline functions, templated functions and templated types in .cpp files, and then #include the .cpp file. Whether this is a header or a source file doesn't really matter; the preprocessor does not care and is just a convention.
A quick summary of the whole process from C++ code (several files) and to a final executable:
The preprocessor is run, which parses all the directives which starts with a '#'. The #include directive concatenates the included file with inferior, for example. It also does macro-replacement and token-pasting.
The actual compiler runs on the intermediate text file after the preprocessor stage, and emits assembler code.
The assembler runs on the assembly file and emits machine code, this is usually called an object file and follows the binary executable format of the operative system in question. For example, Windows uses the PE (portable executable format), while Linux uses the Unix System V ELF format, with GNU extensions. At this stage, symbols are still marked as undefined.
Finally, the linker is run. All the previous stages were run on each translation unit in order. However, the linker stage works on all the generated object files which were generated by the assembler. The linker resolves symbols and does a lot of magic like creating sections and segments, which is dependent on the target platform and binary format. Programmers aren't required to know this in general, but it surely helps in some cases.
Again, this was definetely more than you asked for, but I hope the nitty-gritty details helps you to see the bigger picture.
The typical solution is to use .h files for declarations only and .cpp files for implementation. If you need to reuse the implementation you include the corresponding .h file into the .cpp file where the necessary class/function/whatever is used and link against an already compiled .cpp file (either an .obj file - usually used within one project - or .lib file - usually used for reusing from multiple projects). This way you don't need to recompile everything if only the implementation changes.
Think of cpp files as a black box and the .h files as the guides on how to use those black boxes.
The cpp files can be compiled ahead of time. This doesn't work in you #include them, as it needs to actual "include" the code into your program each time it compiles it. If you just include the header, it can just use the header file to determine how to use the precompiled cpp file.
Although this won't make much of a difference for your first project, if you start writing large cpp programs, people are going to hate you because compile times are going to explode.
Also have a read of this: Header File Include Patterns
Header files usually contain declarations of functions / classes, while .cpp files contain the actual implementations. At compile time, each .cpp file gets compiled into an object file (usually extension .o), and the linker combines the various object files into the final executable. The linking process is generally much faster than the compilation.
Benefits of this separation: If you are recompiling one of the .cpp files in your project, you don't have to recompile all the others. You just create the new object file for that particular .cpp file. The compiler doesn't have to look at the other .cpp files. However, if you want to call functions in your current .cpp file that were implemented in the other .cpp files, you have to tell the compiler what arguments they take; that is the purpose of including the header files.
Disadvantages: When compiling a given .cpp file, the compiler cannot 'see' what is inside the other .cpp files. So it doesn't know how the functions there are implemented, and as a result cannot optimize as aggressively. But I think you don't need to concern yourself with that just yet (:
The basic idea that headers are only included and cpp files are only compiled. This will become more useful once you have many cpp files, and recompiling the whole application when you modify only one of them will be too slow. Or when the functions in the files will start depending on each other. So, you should separate class declarations into your header files, leave implementation in cpp files and write a Makefile (or something else, depending on what tools are you using) to compile the cpp files and link the resulting object files into a program.
If you #include a cpp file in several other files in your program, the compiler will try to compile the cpp file multiple times, and will generate an error as there will be multiple implementations of the same methods.
Compilation will take longer (which becomes a problem on large projects), if you make edits in #included cpp files, which then force recompilation of any files #including them.
Just put your declarations into header files and include those (as they don't actually generate code per se), and the linker will hook up the declarations with the corresponding cpp code (which then only gets compiled once).
re-usability, architecture and data encapsulation
here's an example:
say you create a cpp file which contains a simple form of string routines all in a class mystring, you place the class decl for this in a mystring.h compiling mystring.cpp to a .obj file
now in your main program (e.g. main.cpp) you include header and link with the mystring.obj.
to use mystring in your program you don't care about the details how mystring is implemented since the header says what it can do
now if a buddy wants to use your mystring class you give him mystring.h and the mystring.obj, he also doesn't necessarily need to know how it works as long as it works.
later if you have more such .obj files you can combine them into a .lib file and link to that instead.
you can also decide to change the mystring.cpp file and implement it more effectively, this will not affect your main.cpp or your buddies program.
While it is certainly possible to do as you did, the standard practice is to put shared declarations into header files (.h), and definitions of functions and variables - implementation - into source files (.cpp).
As a convention, this helps make it clear where everything is, and makes a clear distinction between interface and implementation of your modules. It also means that you never have to check to see if a .cpp file is included in another, before adding something to it that could break if it was defined in several different units.
If it works for you then there is nothing wrong with it -- except that it will ruffle the feathers of people who think that there is only one way to do things.
Many of the answers given here address optimizations for large-scale software projects. These are good things to know about, but there is no point in optimizing a small project as if it were a large project -- that is what is known as "premature optimization". Depending on your development environment, there may be significant extra complexity involved in setting up a build configuration to support multiple source files per program.
If, over time, your project evolves and you find that the build process is taking too long, then you can refactor your code to use multiple source files for faster incremental builds.
Several of the answers discuss separating interface from implementation. However, this is not an inherent feature of include files, and it is quite common to #include "header" files that directly incorporate their implementation (even the C++ Standard Library does this to a significant degree).
The only thing truly "unconventional" about what you have done was naming your included files ".cpp" instead of ".h" or ".hpp".
When you compile and link a program the compiler first compiles the individual cpp files and then they link (connect) them. The headers will never get compiled, unless included in a cpp file first.
Typically headers are declarations and cpp are implementation files. In the headers you define an interface for a class or function but you leave out how you actually implement the details. This way you don't have to recompile every cpp file if you make a change in one.
I will suggest you to go through Large Scale C++ Software Design by John Lakos. In the college, we usually write small projects where we do not come across such problems. The book highlights the importance of separating interfaces and the implementations.
Header files usually have interfaces which are supposed not to be changed so frequently.
Similarly a look into patterns like Virtual Constructor idiom will help you grasp the concept further.
I am still learning like you :)
It's like writing a book, you want to print out finished chapters only once
Say you are writing a book. If you put the chapters in separate files then you only need to print out a chapter if you have changed it. Working on one chapter doesn't change any of the others.
But including the cpp files is, from the compiler's point of view, like editing all of the chapters of the book in one file. Then if you change it you have to print all the pages of the entire book in order to get your revised chapter printed. There is no "print selected pages" option in object code generation.
Back to software: I have Linux and Ruby src lying around. A rough measure of lines of code...
Linux Ruby
100,000 100,000 core functionality (just kernel/*, ruby top level dir)
10,000,000 200,000 everything
Any one of those four categories has a lot of code, hence the need for modularity. This kind of code base is surprisingly typical of real-world systems.
There are times when non conventional programming techniques are actually quite useful and solve otherwise difficult (if not impossible problems).
If C source is generated by third party applications such as lexx and yacc they can obviously be compiled and linked separately and this is the usual approach.
However there are times when these sources can cause linkage problems with other unrelated sources. You have some options if this occurs. Rewrite the conflicting components to accommodate the lexx and yacc sources. Modify the lexx & yacc componets to accommodate your sources. '#Include' the lexx and yacc sources where they are required.
Re-writing the the components is fine if the changes are small and the components are understood to begin with (i.e: you not porting someone else's code).
Modifying the lexx and yacc source is fine as long as the build process doesn't keep regenerating the source from the lexx and yacc scripts.
You can always revert to one of the other two methods if you feel it is required.
Adding a single #include and modifying the makefile to remove the build of the lexx/yacc components to overcome all your problems is attractive fast and provides you the opportunity to prove the code works at all without spending time rewriting code and questing whether the code would have ever worked in the first place when it isn't working now.
When two C files are included together they are basically one file and there are no external references required to be resolved at link time!
I would like to write code in .hpp without separation to .h and .cpp
I did it. I use .cpp only for static class-fields definitions
I would like not to write #include manually ...
I use forward delarations where it possible.
Every my .hpp file containt #pragma once.
But, when my project grows up to 40-50 classes i saw problem of include graph. There are some errors of definitions.
Image with include graph of my project model (like part of mvc) attached.
I used this app for graph generation (can work without MSVS!).
How include graph should look like? Like a tree?
How not to write includes manually, like in C# or Java?
Unfortunately you're possibly using the wrong language. There are some things that are just much in C++ easier when you separate the class definition from implementation. Even with forward declarations you'll probably still wind up with circular dependencies that can only be resolved by moving implementations into separate files.
If you want to write idiomatic Java, just write it in Java. If you want to use the C++ language unfortunately you'll have to work within its constraints.
Let's assume you have a .hpp file per class, then, the include graph is similar to the class dependency graph.
For sake of reusability, a class dependency graph should be acyclic (you can achieve this by using interfaces to "split" cycles).
So, I guess the include graph should be acyclic too.
As for the #include clauses, I'm afraid you have to write them manually. But if your classes are small enough, this shouldn't be a problem (if your classes are so huge you can't figure out what include you need, you've got a design problem).
Just as a small note, splitting your classes into .cpp and .h files not only solves the circular dependency problem, but also might dramatically increase your compilation time.
If you're attempting to write header-only code, you would probably end up with a full rebuild of your project even if one small part of code gets changed.
Header-only code only makes sense if you're designing a template-based library, basically, because template should reside in headers. See boost template library, for example. And also to mention, real application using template libraries still have those .cpp files for their code and that's where the instantiated templates are actually "used".
I highly suggest placing implementation into ".cpp" files and declarations or interface into header files, ".hpp".
When an inline function is changed in a header file, ALL source files that include the header file will be recompiled. When a function is changed in a source file, only the source file needs to be recompiled.
Get the code working correctly and robustly before creating inline functions.
Another suggestion is to make libraries (collection of object files) for source files that are grouped by a theme or are not compiled often (i.e. they work and don't change).
Don't worry about the quantity of files nor the length of the build process. Focus on completing the project correctly, robustly and under schedule. Adjust the build process as necessary. If there is a lot of time in the schedule are the code works correctly and is robust, then make changes. If changing the build process can speed up development time *significantly", then make the changes.
Why to use .cpp files if I can have all of my C++ code in .h file? I mean .cpp files are quite strange to use if all code can be wrote in .h file? Can any one clerefy?
A few reasons:
(1) Incremental Build Times
When projects grow larger, managing the build time is problematic especially for C++ projects. Building 1 or 5 minutes after a minor change makes a big difference. This is emphasized by most changes in large projects being small and require a lot of testing. Add to that any attempt of TDD and refactoring, and you are a dead slug with sicilian shoes.
Splitting into header and body, and moving it to libs improves incremental build times tremendously.
(2) Statics
For many things you need a single instance of a type, i.e.
// .cpp
static Foo foo;
There is no way (that I'm aware of) allowing this in a header-only project. Compiler specific solutions are limited, e.g. __declspec(selectany) in MSVC is limited to POD types.
[edit] C++17 now allows inline also for variable initialization, so this is not a blocking issue anymore.
(3) Implementation hiding
.cpp / .h separation is the only way to clearly separate a public interface from implementation details. You can throw class members into a private section, but that doesn't work for other entities.
(Even the header/body separation is leaky unless you add additional techniques such as PIMPL, so this argument is a bit weak IMO, but again, in a large project I'd dearly miss this efficient if imperfect method).
Great question, anyway - you've recognized that there's something afoul with the C/C++ build model, which I consider an ancient relic of horrible implications.
You should try how far you can push a "header only" model (or, at least, a "almost only headers", to allow for statics). You might get quite far - also it would be interesting to hear from people who have tried.
It might be worth a try to use static libraries to separate and encapsulate implementations, and otherwise keep all your code in headers. I can see a few problems with that, but it's nto that our current modus operandi is trouble free.
You could put all your code into .h files. Contrary to popular belief, this won't duplicate the code across your .obj files. Modern compilers are much smarter than that.
Compilation is somewhat an issue though. If you have 20 .h files all included into main.cpp, compiling main.cpp will take a while. And it will be recompiled, including all 20 of your implementation .h files, every time one of your include files changes.
Then there's style. It just looks wrong to me. But this is a matter of preference.
Then there are references. If ClassA uses ClassB, and ClassB uses ClassA, which one do you include first?
Header files (.h) are meant to be used to define the interface so that your classes and code can be used in other translation units. If you place implementation in the .h file then you end up with multiple copies of the same code, compiled into each translation unit that includes that .h file. That defeats the point of splitting your code into small pieces that can be studied and developed in isolation.
As a novice C++ programmer I have always put my classes interface in .h files and implementation in .cpp files. However I have recently tried C# for a while and I really like its clean syntax and way to organize files, in particular there is no dinstinction between headers and implementation, you usually implement a class for each .cs file and you don't need headers.
I know that in C++ this is also possible (you can code "inline" functions in .h files), but up to now I have always seen a clear distinction between .h and .cpp files in C++ projects. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach?
Thank you
There's a few ways that separating the two help in C++. Firstly, if you'd like to update a library without changing an interface then having the code in the C++ file means that you simply can update the library rather than the library plus the headers. Secondly it hides the implementation. That is, it forces people to look at your class only in terms of the interface, the thing that should concern them if the code is well written. Finally, there's a sort of asthetic cleanness with interface + documentation that comes with this separation. It's something you have to get used to but after a while it'll feel natural (opinion.)
Don't forget build times.
Putting implementation code in header files makes them more likely to be changed. And changing header files will cause rebuilds of all the CPP files that include them, which in turn increases build times. This can be significant in larger projects.
I am also a fan of keeping the implementation hidden from users of my libraries. Unfortunately this doesn't work for template classes.
My rule of thumb: keep declarations in .H files, keep definitions in .CPP files.
it's cooler to have the symbols defined at one place for the case you wanted to compound C++ with already compiled binaries (typicly when using a library). imagine you need to define external symbols for global stuff in your binaries. if you had .cpp and .h code in the same file you would have to define the symbols for your binaries for every such file. in two files way you could have just the one .h with definitions for binaries and a lot of .cpp files that use it.
The main difference is that something implemented inside a .h file will be placed in every compilation unit that includes that header, this will create redundancy during the compile phase in the final binary executable.. while splitting with .h and .cpp will compile it in a single object file that is later linked against the other objects files by having just one compiled binary code that implements that header file.
In addition if you declare things just inside a .h you are not able to share variables and structures between more other .cpp files..
It's interesting to note that C# seems to be going in the C/C++ direction to some extent recently, with the introduction of partial classes.
The particular advantage of this in the IDE is that the Visual Studio designer will modify the part of the class that deals with visual controls, or data members, and their layout without any worries about mucking up the methods (application logic) that reside in a separate file.
I would echo #wheaties and add a few further items
Compilation is easier (may be it's just me), I've never been able to get compilation to work just right if you modify the header only (as in all the implementation files that have included it). I believe in Makefiles you have to add the dependencies manually which is a real pain in very large scale projects (again could just be me). So if you have your code in implementation files, then changes simply mean recompiling that particular file - very useful when you want to do quick changes, build and test.
Let me re-iterate the hiding aspect, most often you don't want people to know the implementation details due to the sensitive nature of the code, and thus only expose the headers plus the pre-built libraries, and the separation is key here.
Forward declarations, neat trick where you don't need to include the implementation details of a class in the header file if it's not being "used" in any of the code in the header, but then in the implementation file you can include the real header and "it all works nicely" (helps if you have cyclic dependencies - why you have them is different issue!)
On a recent large project the authors of systems I wanted to use had placed a lot of the code in .h files. When including their .h files into my own source it added further dependencies to my file. After including the dependencies for their project I ended up with typedef collisions. If they had separated the code and only placed declarations in the .h file it would have been much simpler. I suggest using posix types and only putting declarations into .h files.
I see that a lot of responses advocate separation, primarily for build-time and implementation hiding benefits. Both are definitely pluses, though I'll argue the counter example: Boost.
Most Boost libraries use a .hpp file with no external linking. The reason is that this is often required in the case of templates, when the compiler must know the argument types from the calling routine. So you might not have a choice if you want to stick with the "modern" C++ approach of shunning classes for templates.
As for the comparison part of .cs versus .cpp/.h I think you need to keep in mind the background the lead architect of C#: Anders Hejlsberg. In Delphi you also don't have the distinction of header and module (ignoring include files for this discussion). You simply have two sections in a unit file initialization and implementation.
The other points were already mentioned.
I've read a few of the articles about the need / applicability / practicality of keeping headers around in C++ but I can't seem to find anywhere a solid reason why / when the above should or should not be done. I'm aware that boost uses .hpp files to deliver template functions to end users without the need for an associated .cpp file, and this thought is partially sourced off browsing through that code. It seems like this would be a convenient way to deliver single file modules of say a new Wt or Qt widget (still sticking to the one class per .h convention).
However are there any negative technical implementations for giving somebody a single .hpp file with both the header declaration and implementation assuming you have no problem with them having access to the implementation (say in the context of OSS). Does it for instances have any negative implications from the compiler's / linker's perspective?
Any opinions or perspectives on this would be appreciated.
'm aware that boost uses .hpp files to deliver template functions to end users without the need for an associated .cpp file
Wrong verb: it’s not “without the need”, it’s “without the ability”.
If Boost could, they would separate their libraries into headers and implementation files. In fact, they do so where ever possible.
The reason for a clean separation is simple: compilation time for header-only projects increases tremendously because associated header files have to be read, parsed and compiled every time you recompile the tiniest part of your application.
Implementation files only need to be compiled if you happen to recompile that particular object file.
Large C and/or C++ projects take hours to compile. And these use a clean separation into header and object files. If they would only use header files, I’m betting the compilation time would be measured in days instead of hours.
But for many of Boost’s libraries, the fact is that template definitions may not reside in a separate compilation unit than their declarations so this is simply not possible.
The major negative aspect of .hpp-only libraries is that they cannot refer to a precompiled module. All of the code present in the .hpp and hence all of the code in the library must be added to your application. This increases the size of the binary and makes for redundant binaries on such a system that uses the library more than once.
With templates you have no real choice. In theory, export allows you to separate the interface from the implementation, but only one compiler (Comeau) really supports this1, and it's being dropped from C++0x.
In any case, trying to put the implementations of non-template functions into headers leads to one obvious problem: the One Definition Rule remains in effect, so if you define the same function in more than one translation unit, you have a problem. The linker will typically give an error saying the same symbol has been defined more than one.
1Though it's mostly the EDG compiler front-end that really supports it, so other EDG-based compilers, such as Intel's also support export to some degree, though they don't document it, so you can't depend on much with them.