I want to write a library that to use, you only need to include one header file. However, if you have multiple source files and include the header in both, you'll get multiple definition errors, because the library is both declared and defined in the header. I have seen header-only libraries, in Boost I think. How did they do that?
Declare your functions inline, and put them in a namespace so you don't collide:
namespace fancy_schmancy
{
inline void my_fn()
{
// magic happens
}
};
The main reason why Boost is largely header-only is because it's heavily template oriented. Templates generally get a pass from the one definition rule. In fact to effectively use templates, you must have the definition visible in any translation unit that uses the template.
Another way around the one definition rule (ODR) is to use inline functions. Actually, getting a free-pass from the ODR is what inline really does - the fact that it might inline the function is really more of an optional side-effect.
A final option (but probably not as good) is to make your functions static. This may lead to code bloat if the linker isn't able to figure out that all those function instances are really the same. But I mention it for completeness. Note that compilers will often inline static functions even if they aren't marked as inline.
Boost uses header-only libraries a lot because like the STL, it's mostly built using class and function templates, which are almost always header-only.
If you are not writing templates I would avoid including code in your header files - it's more trouble than it's worth. Make this a plain old static library.
There are many truly header-only Boost libraries, but they tend to be very simple (and/or only templates). The bigger libraries accomplish the same effect through some trickery: they have "automatic linking" (you'll see this term used here). They essentially have a bunch of preprocessor directives in the headers that figure out the appropriate lib file for your platform and use a #pragma to instruct the linker to link it in. So you don't have to explicitly link it, but it is still being linked.
Related
Background: The C++ inline keyword does not determine if a function should be inlined.
Instead, inline permits you to provide multiple definitions of a single function or variable, so long as each definition occurs in a different translation unit.
Basically, this allows definitions of global variables and functions in header files.
Are there some examples of why I might want to write a definition in a header file?
I've heard that there might be templating examples where it's impossible to write the definition in a separate cpp file.
I've heard other claims about performance. But is that really true? Since, to my knowledge, the use of the inline keyword doesn't guarantee that the function call is inlined (and vice versa).
I have a sense that this feature is probably primarily used by library writers trying to write wacky and highly optimized implementations. But are there some examples?
It's actually simple: you need inline when you want to write a definition (of a function or variable (since c++17)) in a header. Otherwise you would violate odr as soon as your header is included in more than 1 tu. That's it. That's all there is to it.
Of note is that some entities are implicitly declared inline like:
methods defined inside the body of the class
template functions and variables
constexpr functions and variables
Now the question becomes why and when would someone want to write definitions in the header instead of separating declarations in headers and definitions in source code files. There are advantages and disadvantages to this approach. Here are some to consider:
optimization
Having the definition in a source file means that the code of the function is baked into the tu binary. It cannot be inlined at the calling site outside of the tu that defines it. Having it in a header means that the compiler can inline it everywhere it sees fit. Or it can generate different code for the function depending on the context where it is called. The same can be achieved with lto within an executable or library, but for libraries the only option for enabling this optimization is having the definitions in the header.
library distribution
Besides enabling more optimizations in a library, having a header only library (when it's possible) means an easier way to distribute that library. All the user has to do is download the headers folder and add it to the include path of his/her project. In the case of non header only library things become more complicated. Because you can't mix and match binaries compiled by different compiler and even by the same compiler but with different flags. So you either have to distribute your library with the full source code along with a build tool or have the library compiled in many formats (cpu architecture/OS/compiler/compiler flags combinations)
human preference
Having to write the code once is considered by some (me included) an advantage: both from code documentation perspective and from a maintenance perspective. Others consider separating declaration from definitions is better. One argument is that it achieves separation of interface vs implementation but that is just not the case: in a header you need to have private member declarations even if those aren't part of the interface.
compile time performance
Having all the code in header means duplicating it in every tu. This is a real problem when it comes to compilation time. Heavy header C++ projects are notorious for slow compilation times. It also means that a modification of a function definition would trigger the recompilation of all the tu that include it, as opposed to just 1 tu in the case of definition in source code. Precompiled headers try to solve this problem but the solutions are not portable and have problems of their own.
If the same function definition appears in multiple compilation units then it needs to be inline otherwise you get a linking error.
You need the inline keyword e.g. for function templates if you want to make them available using a header because then their definition also has to be in the header.
The below statement might be a bit oversimplified because compilers and linkers are really complex nowadays, but to get a basic idea it is still valid.
A cpp file and the headers included by that cpp file form a compilation unit and each compilation unit is compiled individually. Within that compilation unit, the compiler can do many optimizations like potentially inlining any function call (no matter if it is a member or a free function) as long as the code still behaves according to the specification.
So if you place the function definition in the header you allow the compiler to know the code of that function and potentially do more optimizations.
If the definition is in another compilation unit the compiler can't do much and optimizations then can only be done at linking time. Link time optimizations are also possible and are indeed also done. And while link-time optimizations became better they potentially can't do as much as the compiler can do.
Header only libraries have the big advantage that you do not need to provide project files with them, the one how wants to use that library just copies the headers to their projects and includes them.
In short:
You're writing a library and you want it to be header-only, to make its use more convenient.
Even if it's not a library, in some cases you may want to keep some of the definitions in a header to make it easier to maintain (whether or not this makes things easier is subjective).
to my knowledge, the use of the inline keyword doesn't guarantee that the function call is inlined
Yes, defining it in a header (as inline) doesn't guarantee inlining. But if you don't define it in a header, it will never be inlined (unless you're using link-time optimizations). So:
You want the compiler to be able to inline the functions, if it decides to.
Also it may the compiler more knowledge about a function:
maybe it never throws, but is not marked noexcept;
maybe several consecutive calls can be merged into one (there's no side effects, etc), but __attribute__((const)) is missing;
maybe it never returns, but [[noreturn]] is missing;
...
there might be templating examples where it's impossible to write the definition in a separate cpp file.
That's true for most templates. They automatically behave as if they were inline, so you don't need to specify it explicitly. See Why can templates only be implemented in the header file? for details.
Many C++ projects (e.g. many Boost libraries) are "header-only linked".
Is this possible also in plain C? How to put the source code into headers? Are there any sites about it?
Executive summary: You can, but you shouldn't.
C and C++ code is preprocessed before it's compiled: all headers are "pasted" into the source files that include them, recursively. If you define a function in a header and it is included by two C files, you will end up with two copies in each object file (One Definition Rule violation).
You can create "header-only" C libraries if all your functions are marked as static, that is, not visible outside the translation unit. But it also means you will get a copy of all the static functions in each translation unit that includes the header file.
It is a bit different in C++: inline functions are not static, symbols emitted by the compiler are still visible by the linker, but the linker can discard duplicates, rather than giving up ("weak" symbols).
It's not idiomatic to write C code in the headers, unless it's based on macros (e.g. queue(3)). In C++, the main reason to keep code in the headers are templates, which may result in code instantiation for different template parameters, which is not applicable to C.
You do not link headers.
In C++ it's slightly easier to write code that's already better-off in headers than in separately-compiled modules because templates require it. 1
But you can also use the inline keyword for functions, which exists in C as well as C++. 2
// Won't cause redefinition link errors, because of 6.7.4/5
inline void foo(void) {
// ...
}
[c99: 6.7.4/5:] A function declared with an inline function
specifier is an inline function. The function specifier may appear
more than once; the behavior is the same as if it appeared only once.
Making a function an inline function suggests that calls to the
function be as fast as possible. The extent to which such
suggestions are effective is implementation-defined.
You're a bit stuck when it comes to data objects, though.
1 - Sort of.
2 - C99 for sure. C89/C90 I'd have to check.
Boost makes heavy use templates and template meta-programming which you cannot emulate (all that easily) in C.
But you can of course cheat by having declarations and code in C headers which you #include but that is not the same thing. I'd say "When in Rome..." and program C as per C conventions with libraries.
Yes, it is quite possible. Declare all functions in headers and either all as static or just use a single compilation unit (i.e. only a single c file) in your projects.
As a personal anecdote, I know quite a number of physicists who insist that this technique is the only true way to program C. It is beneficial because it's the poor man's version of -fwhole-program, i.e. makes optimizations based on the knowledge of function behaviour possible. It is practical because you don't need to learn about using the linker flags. It is a bad idea because your whole program must be compiled as a whole and recompiled with each minor change.
Personally, I'd recommend to let it be or at least go with static for only a few functions.
I'm working on a very tiny piece of C/C++ source code. The program reads input values from stdin, processes them with an algorithm and writes the results to stdout.
I would just implement all that in a single file, but I also want test cases for the algorithm (not the input/output reading), so I have the following files in my project:
main.cpp
sort.hpp
sort_test.cpp
I implement the algorithm in sort.hpp right away, no sort.cpp. It's rather short and doesn't have any dependencies.
Would you say that, in some cases, functions defined in headers are okay, even if they are sophisticated algorithms and not just simple accessors/mutators? Or is there a reason I should avoid this? When should I move code from header to source file?
There is nothing wrong with having functions in header files, as long as you understand the tradeoff. Putting them in a header file means they'll have to be compiled (and recompiled) in any translation unit that includes the header. (and they have to be declared inline, or you will get linker errors.)
In projects with many translation units, that may add up to a noticeable slowdown in compile times, if you do it a lot.
On the other hand, it ensures that the function definition is visible everywhere the function is called -- and that means that it can be trivially inlined, so the resulting program may run faster.
And finally, with function templates, you typically have no realistic alternative. The definition must be visible at the call site, and the only practical way to achieve that is to put it in a header.
A final consideration is that header-only libraries are easier to deploy and use. You don't need to link against anything, you don't have to worry about ABI's or anything else. You just add the headers to your project, include them and off you go.
Quite a few popular libraries use a header-only strategy.
When you put functions in headers you have to make sure to declare them inline. This is required to avoid a duplicate definition warning when more than one .cpp file include that header file. Generally you should only put small functions inside header files because it will be compiled for each cpp file that includes the header which will slow down compilation time and also results in code bloat; a larger executable file.
It's OK to put any function in the header as long as it's inline. Things such as functions defined inside class { } and templates are implicitly inline.
If the resulting application becomes too large, then optimize the code size. Optimizing before there is a problem is an anti-pattern, especially when there is a benefit to doing it "your way," and the fix is as simple as moving from one file to another and erasing inline.
Of course, if you want to distribute the code as a library, then deciding between a header, static library, or dynamic library binary is an important decision affecting the users.
The vast majority of the boost libraries are header-only, so I'd say: Yes, this is an established and accepted practice. Just don't forget to inline.
That really is a stile choice. But putting it in the header does mean that it will be inline code rather than a function. If you wanted that same functionality, you could use the inline keyword:
inline int max(int a, int b)
{
return (a > b) ? a : b;
}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_function
The reason you should avoid this in general (for non inline functions) is because multiple source files will be including your header, creating linker errors.
It doesn't matter if you have a pramga once or similar trick - the duplication will show up if you have more than one compilation unit (e.g. cpp files) including the same header.
If you wish to inline the function, it MUST be in the header else it can't get inlined.
If you publish a header with your libraries and the header has some sort of implementation in it, you can be sure that after a few years if you change the implementation and it doesn't work exactly the same way as it did before, some peoples code will break since thay will have come to rely on the implementation they saw in the header. Yeah i know one should not do it but many people do look in header for the implementation and other behaviour they can exploit/use in a not intended way to overcome some problem they are having.
If you are planning to use templates then you have no choice but to put it all in header. (this might not be necessary if you compiler supports export templates but there is only 1 i know of).
Its ok to have the implementation in the header. It depends on what you need. If you separate the definition to a different file then the compiler will create symbols with external linkage if you dont want that you can define the functions inside the header itself. But you would be wasting some amount of memory for the code segment. If you include this header file in two different files then both files codes segment will have this function definition.
If other header file is going to have a function with similar name then its going to be a problem. Then you have to use inline.
Is there ever such a pattern of dependancies that it is impossible to keep everything in header files only? What if we enforced a rule of one class per header only?
For the purposes of this question, let's ignore static things :)
I am aware of no features in standard C++, excepting statics which you have already mentioned, which require a library to define a full translation unit (instead of only headers). However, it's not recommended to do that, because when you do, you force all your clients to recompile their entire codebase whenever your library changes. If you're using source files or a static library or a dynamic library form of distribution, your library can be changed/updated/modified without forcing everyone to recompile.
It is possible, I would say, at the express condition of not using a number of language features: as you noticed, a few uses of the static keyword.
It may require a few trick, but they can be reviewed.
You'll need to keep the header / source distinction whenever you need to break a dependency cycle, even though the two files will be header files in practice.
Free-functions (non-template) have to be declared inline, the compiler may not inline them, but if they are declared so it won't complained that they have been redefined when the client builts its library / executable.
Globally shared data (global variables and class static attributes) should be emulated using local static attribute in functions / class methods. In practice it matters little as far as the caller is concerned (just adds ()). Note that in C++0x this becomes the favored way because it's guaranteed to be thread-safe while still protecting from the initialization order fiasco, until then... it's not thread-safe ;)
Respecting those 3 points, I believe you would be able to write a fully-fledged header-only library (anyone sees something else I missed ?)
A number of Boost Libraries have used similar tricks to be header-only even though their code was not completely template. For example Asio does very consciously and proposes the alternative using flags (see release notes for Asio 1.4.6):
clients who only need a couple features need not worry about building / linking, they just grab what they need
clients who rely on it a bit more or want to cut down on compilation time are offered the ability to build their own Asio library (with their own sets of flags) and then include "lightweight" headers
This way (at the price of some more effort on the part of the library devs) the clients get their cake and eat it too. It's a pretty nice solution I think.
Note: I am wondering whether static functions could be inlined, I prefer to use anonymous namespaces myself so never really looked into it...
The one class per header rule is meaningless. If this doesn't work:
#include <header1>
#include <header2>
then some variation of this will:
#include <header1a>
#include <header2>
#include <header1b>
This might result in less than one class per header, but you can always use (void*) and casts and inline functions (in which case the 'inline' will likely be duly ignored by the compiler). So the question, seems to me, can be reduced to:
class A
{
// ...
void *pimpl;
}
Is it possible that the private implementation, pimpl, depends on the declaration of A? If so then pimpl.cpp (as a header) must both precede and follow A.h. But Since you can always, once again, use (void*) and casts and inline functions in preceding headers, it can be done.
Of course, I could be wrong. In either case: Ick.
In my long career, I haven't come across dependency pattern that would disallow header-only implementation.
Mind you that if you have circular dependencies between classes, you may need to resort to either abstract interface - concrete implementation paradigm, or use templates (using templates allows you to forward-reference properties/methods of template parameters, which are resolved later during instantiation).
This does not mean that you SHOULD always aim for header-only libraries. Good as they are, they should be reserved to template and inline code. They SHOULD NOT include substantial complex calculations.
When writing a header library (like Boost), can one define free-floating (non-method) functions without (1) bloating the generated binary and (2) incurring "unused" warnings?
When I define a function in a header that's included by multiple source files which in turn is linked into the same binary, the linker complains about redefinitions. One way around this is to make the functions static, but this reproduces the code in each translation unit (BTW, can linkers safely dereplicate these?). Furthermore, this triggers compiler warnings about the function being unused.
I was trying to look for an example of a free-floating function in Boost, but I couldn't find one. Is the trick to contain everything in a class (or template)?
If you really want to define the function (as opposed to declaring it), you'll need to use inline to prevent linker errors.
Otherwise, you can declare the function in the header file and provide its implementation separately in your source file.
You can use the inline keyword:
inline void wont_give_linker_errors(void)
{
// ...
}
Er... The answer to your question is simply don't. You just don't define functions in header files, unless they are inline.
'static' function can also be defined in headers, but it is only useful for very specific rare purposes. Using 'static' just to work around a multiple-definition problem is utter nonsense.
Again, header files are for non-defining function declarations. Why on Earth would you want to define functions there?
You said you are writing "header library". What's a "header library"? Please note, that Boost defines its "functions" in header files because their "functions" are not really functions, they are function templates. Function templates have to be defined in header files (well, almost). If that's wasn't the case, Boost wouldn't be doing something as strange as defining anything in header files.
Besides the already mentioned inline, with most compilers templates have to be defined in headers (and with all compilers it's allowed). Since boost is mostly templates, that explains why it is almost all headers.
People have suggested inline but that violates the very first part of your question i.e. it bloats the code as the full definition is inserted into the code at each call of the function. The answer to your overall question is therefore "No".
If you mark them as static then they are still defined in each source file as you rightly pointed out but only once and so that's a better option than inline if code size is the only issue. I don't know if linkers can, or are allowed to, spot the duplicates and merge them. I suspect not.
Edit:
Just to clear up any confusion as to whether I support the notion of using static and/or defining functions within headers files generally then rest assured I don't. This was simply meant as a technical response as to the differences between functions marked inline and static defined in header files. Nothing more.