I would like to concatenate the 3 following strings to produce a good debug output, by using std::setw() after.
__ FILENAME__ , ":" and LINE
#define __FILENAME__ (strrchr(__FILE__, '/') ? strrchr(__FILE__, '/') + 1 : __FILE__)
#define AT __FILENAME__ ":" __LINE__
#ifdef DEBUG
#ifdef VERBOSE
#define printDebug(x) std::cout << AT << x << std::flush
#else
#define printDebug(x) std::cout << x << std::flush
#endif
#else
#define printDebug(x)
#endif
But actually I receive errors saying that a ";" field is missing before ":". Does someone have an idea ?
I actually call the printDebug() function like that :
printDebug("[SUCCESS] Receiving Message");
You can concatenate string literals by putting them alongside each other.
":" is a string literal.
__LINE__ expands to a numeric literal, not string one.
__FILENAME__ doesn't expand to a literal at all. It expands to an expression.
There is a way to get a string literal out of __LINE__, but you can't make __FILENAME__ a string literal.
You don't need to use literal concatenation here at all. You can simply do this:
#ifdef VERBOSE
#define printDebug(x) std::cout << __FILENAME__ << ":" << __LINE__ << x << std::flush
We have some Macros like
#define LOGG(out,line,file,.....)
std::stringstream logprocess; \
logprocess << std::stringstream(out) ; \
functiona(out,....,....);
}
So the thing to be passed to LOGG can be like:
LOGG(message<<"i would like to print"<<interger,......)
So we mainly use "<<" to constructor from whater ever type we want and then send to the MACRO LOGG. It works perfect with gnuc++ 98 but we it is compiled with -std=c++11, it gives error:
error: no match for 'operator<<' (operand types are 'std::stringstream {aka std::basic_stringstream}' and 'std::stringstream {aka std::basic_stringstream}')
Well, as #thundium pointed out, the error message is pretty clear.
An std::stringstream cannot accept an std::stringstream using it's << operator. Maybe you could use this instead:
logprocess << std::stringstream(out).str()
But I won't recommend it.
I can't say for sure how exactly you use this macro in your code, but I do spot a few possible improvements, for example:
Why does your macro receive file and line as parameters? This is a macro and it can use the __FILE__ and __LINE__ inherently
Why create two string streams when one is sufficient?
Why have an additional functional wrapper around the actual logging facility and not just use std::cout or std::ofstream?
Here are two simple and trivial implementations I think you can use in your code with minimum adjustments:
#define LOGG1(...) \
std::cout << __FILE__ << "[" << __LINE__ << "] " << __VA_ARGS__ << "\n"
#define LOGG2(...) \
std::stringstream ss; \
ss << __FILE__ << "[" << __LINE__ << "] " << __VA_ARGS__ << "\n"; \
functional(ss.str());
Here is a full example
I'm trying to redefine a Variadic Macro to use cout instead of printf. Here's the original code:
#define LOGE(...) PRINT_LEVEL(1, __VA_ARGS__);
#define PRINT_LEVEL(level,...) do { \
if (debug_components.DEBUG_COMPONENT >= level) \
{ printf("[%s]: ", levels_strings[level-1]); printf(__VA_ARGS__); printf("\n"); } \
}while(0)
I converted this to the following to use cout instead of printf:
#define PRINT_LEVEL(level,...) do { \
if (debug_components.DEBUG_COMPONENT >= level) \
{ std::string argString; sprintf(argString, __VA_ARGS__); std::cout << "[" << levels_strings[level-1] << "]" << argString << "\n";} \
}while(0)
For some reason, __VA_ARGS__ works fine with printf, but NOT sprintf. It also does not work with cout. I'd like to know the correct way to convert __VA_ARGS__ to a string, or failing that, the correct way to just print it out using cout.
sprintf takes an extra argument, the data buffer to write the output to. You can't swap out printf for sprintf without making the changes to provide that buffer. It also doesn't return a pointer to the string, so you can't assign the result to a std::string and expect it to work. If you're operating unsafely (assuming a maximum buffer length), something as simple as:
#define PRINT_LEVEL(level,...) do { \
if (debug_components.DEBUG_COMPONENT >= level) \
{
char buf[1024];
sprintf(buf, __VA_ARGS__); std::cout << "[" << levels_strings[level-1] << "]" << buf << "\n";} \
}while(0)
would work (and with truncation, could be done with safety if not reliably via snprintf), but if you're using C++ types anyway, you might want to look at a non-printf-y solution
I was using sprintf wrong. Here's the correct code:
char argString[1024]; sprintf(argString, __VA_ARGS__);
Now argString holds the value of VA_ARGS.
Some time ago, I made this beautiful assert macro for c and c++ programs
#define ASSERT(truthy, message) \
if (!(truthy)) \
{\
cout << message << " on line " << __LINE__ << " in file " << __FILE__ << ". Check was " << #truthy << endl;\
}
Scatter ASSERT calls throughout your code, and it will warn you whenever the truthy value is not truthy! Very handy during development to remind you of potential mistakes.
ex
ASSERT(filesFound > 0, "Couldn't find any files, check your path!");
When filesFound is 0, the macro will print out
Couldn't find any files, check your path! on line 27 in file
openFiles.c. Check was filesFound > 0
Now what I want it to print, to give me even more relevant information, is the value of any variables passed into the truthy parameter. Like this
Couldn't find any files, check your path! on line 27 in file
openFiles.c. Check was filesFound > 0, filesFound is 0
This seems lisp-like territory, I wonder, is there any black magic c preprocessing that I can use to evaluate variables and functions to their values, without evaluating the truthy statement?
I assume to be disappointed.
An alternative solution which I've always used is to support varargs in the macro and then force the assert user to specify the relevant message / variables - it's a little bit of extra work each time, but on the plus side you can get exactly the formatting that you want and include information not available in the "truthy" bit, e.g:
#define ASSERT(truthy, message, ...) \
if (!(truthy)) \
{\
MyAssertHandler(__LINE__, __FILE__, #truthy, message, ##__VA_ARGS__);
}
Then you're handler is just a fairly standard var-arg function that can use e.g. vsnprintf to generate the message and output it, e.g. off the top of my head:
void MyAssertHandler(int line, const char* file, const char* expressionStr, const char* format, ...)
{
// Note: You probably want to use vsnprintf instead to first generate
// the message and then add extra info (line, filename, etc.) to
// the actual output
va_list args;
va_start(args, format);
vprintf(format, args);
va_end(args);
// Log to bug database, DebugBreak() if a debugger is attached, etc.
}
usage:
ASSERT(IsBlah(), "BlahBlah: x = %.2f, name = %s", GetX(), GetName());
I cannot imagine a way to do it... except by passing another parameter
#define ASSERT_PARAM(truthy, message, param) \
if (!(truthy)) \
{\
cout << message << " on line " << __LINE__ << " in file " << __FILE__ << ". Check was " << #truthy << ", value was " << param << endl;\
}
You would use it that way:
ASSERT_PARAM(filesFound > 0, "Couldn't find any files, check your path!", filesFound);
getting:
Couldn't find any files, check your path! on line 27 in file openFiles.c. Check was filesFound > 0, value was 0
What you are trying to do sounds very complicated. I'm afraid in C++ it's not possible.
Technically what you are evaluating is a bool expression so you can pass it to a parser whenever the assertion fails. The parser then will build the expression tree, get the leaves (elements of the expression) and return them. The returned values then should be printed out. To do that you will need support for reflection which is actually not supported in C++ AFAIK.
Maybe not the dream solution, but you can pass whole statements to a macro.
#define ASSERT(trusty, action) if (!trusty) { action }
ASSERT(trusty, cout << a << b;)
ASSERT(trusty, printf("%d, %f\n", a, b);)
I think you can split up the truthy Expression like they do it in the first answer here and then you can probably print the individual values. But I'm not sure if it actually works.
The printing could then be resulved using a variadic template function
Perhaps you could compromise and only allow 2 variables and 1 operator in the assertion expression? If so, you could make an ad hoc solution like this:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#define STRINGIFY(x) #x
#define BIN_ASSERT(obj1, op, obj2, msg) \
if(!(obj1 op obj2)) \
{ \
std::cout << msg << " on line " << __LINE__ \
<< " in file " << __FILE__ \
<< "." << std::endl \
<< "Check was " \
<< STRINGIFY(obj1) STRINGIFY(op) STRINGIFY(obj2) \
<< "." << std::endl \
<< "Operator " << #obj1 << ": " << obj1 \
<< "." << std::endl \
<< "Operator " << #obj2 << ": " << obj2 \
<< "." << std::endl; \
}
int main (void)
{
int x = 2;
int y = 3;
std::string s1 = "hello";
std::string s2 = "world";
BIN_ASSERT(1, +, -1, "Value zero"); std::cout << std::endl;
BIN_ASSERT(x, ==, y, "Numbers not equal"); std::cout << std::endl;
BIN_ASSERT(s1, ==, s2, "Strings not equal"); std::cout << std::endl;
}
Output:
Value zero on line 30 in file test.c.
Check was 1+-1.
Operator 1: 1.
Operator -1: -1.
Numbers not equal on line 31 in file test.c.
Check was x==y.
Operator x: 2.
Operator y: 3.
Strings not equal on line 32 in file test.c.
Check was s1==s2.
Operator s1: hello.
Operator s2: world.
I wonder if having the macro take a message is really that useful. A failed assertion is a message to the developer that there is a bug in the code that caused an exceptional behaviour or put the program in an unacceptable state. The user has less to do with it (if they even have access to the source code).
The code below defines an ASSERT macro that takes a boolean expression, evaluates it and prints an informational message. The message contains a value that you've asked to inspect upon failing the assertion.
The macro, just like the standard assert() macro (in <cassert>) goes on to call abort() (from <cstdlib>) to cause an abnormal program termination. This is what you want, because the program entered a state in which it didn't know what more to do.
I'm using std::printf() here for brevity. You do whatever you want.
#include <cstdlib>
#include <cstdio>
#define ASSERT(value, inspect) \
if (!(value)) { \
std::printf("ASSERTION FAILED: '%s', %s is %d: %s#%s:%d\n", #value, \
#inspect, inspect, __func__, __FILE__, __LINE__); \
abort(); \
}
int foo() { return 42; }
int main()
{
// ...
ASSERT(foo() - 40 == 1, foo());
//...
}
Program run:
$ ./a.out
ASSERTION FAILED: 'foo() - 40 == 1', foo() is 42: main#prog.cc:16
Abort
It's not possible to do exactly what you ask for without adding more parameters to the macro. At some point you'll have to stop and realize that you're spending time on creating a text string that you do not want to see.
You need to build an expression 'grabber' / builder.
The macro would become something like:
#define ASSERT_PARAM(truthy, message, param) \
if (!(truthy)) \
{\
Grabber g;
g << #truthy; // grab expression as string
g % truthy; // grab expression and values
cout << message << " on line " << __LINE__ << " in file " << __FILE__ << ". Check was " << #truthy << ", value was " << param << endl;\
cout << g; \
}
What does Grabber do?
It is a bunch of crazy C++ that builds up an expression. It would overload every operator to 'grab' the params of the operator. Every operator returns a reference to the grabber, so it can grab the next operator. ie
Grabber g;
g % filesFound > 0;
Since % (and * and /) have high precedence, the above parses like:
((g % filesFound) > 0)
If template<typename T> Grabber::operator%(T const & val) just records (or prints) the value passed in (ie filesFound), and - importantly - returns itself (g) so that it becomes part of the next expression: ie it becomes g > 0. Causing template<typename T> Grabber::operator>(T const & val) to be called, and > 0 to be recorded.
Then cout << g can spew out everything grabbed.
As mentioned above "It is possible — the Catch library does it. But it’s hellishly difficult".
P.S. you should wrap your macro in a do ... while 0 like this:
#define ASSERT_PARAM(truthy, message, param) \
do \
{ \
if (!(truthy)) \
{\
cout << message << " on line " << __LINE__ << " in file " << __FILE__ << ". Check was " << #truthy << ", value was " << param << endl;\
cout << g; \
} \
} while (0)
What you have currently means that this is valid code:
ASSERT(foo != 0)
else
{
}
And this is NOT valid code:
if (foo != nullptr)
ASSERT(foo->bar != nullptr);
else
x = 10;
Surprisingly, I solved a similar problem before, but I'm not sure if it could help you in this case.
The original solution was proposed by Andrei Alexandrescu in the article Enhancing Assertions, and with no question, relying on some macro tricks.
This amazing facility can be used as the following:
string s1, s2;
...
SMART_ASSERT(s1.empty() && s2.empty())(s1)(s2);
And if something goes wrong, the message would be displayed
Assertion failed in matrix.cpp: 879412:
Expression: 's1.empty() && s2.empty()'
Values: s1 = "Wake up, Neo"
s2 = "It's time to reload."
Be noted that, the SMART_ASSERT can capture infinite variables, theoretically.
For implementation details, please check out the article.
1.#define debug(...) printf( __VA_ARGS__)
2.#define debug(...) std::cout<< __VA_ARGS__
Apparently, 1 is ok, 2 will get error when compiles.
Is there any possibility to use "std::cout" with variable arguments?
What's the point of this macro?
'debug' macro use to print something to debug the code.
void test(const classtype1 &obj1,const classtype2 &obj2)
{
// rewrite operator<<
debug(obj1,obj2);
//if use printf, I must call tostring method(or something likes that) to
//series the object to string.
debug(obj1.tostring(),obj2.tostring());
...
}
You can do something like:
#define DEBUG(x) do { std::osacquire( std::cerr ) << __FILE__ << ":" << __LINE__ << " " << x << std::endl; } while (0);
And then wherever you want to use the macro:
DEBUG( obj1.tostring() + " some stuff " + obj2.tostring() )