I have the following code snippet:
#ifdef DO_LOG
#define log(p) record(p)
#else
#define log(p)
#endif
void record(char *data){
.....
.....
}
Now if I call log("hello world") in my code and DO_LOG isn't defined, will the line be compiled, in other words will it eat up the memory for the string "hello world"?
P.S. There are a lot of record calls in the program and it is memory sensitive, so is there any other way to conditionally compile so that it only depends on the #define DO_LOG?
This should be trivial to verify for yourself by inspecting the resulting binary.
I would say "no", since the expression totally goes away, the compiler will never see the string (it's removed by the preprocessor's macro expansion).
Since the preprocessor runs before the compiler, the line will not even exist when the compiler runs. So the answer is no, it does not use any memory at all.
No, it will not be in the binary. It will not even be compiled - the preprocessor will expand it into an empty string prior to the compilation, so the compiler will not even see it.
No. The preprocessor is executed prior to compilation, and so the code will never even be seen. I would like to add, though, that if you are interested in adding logging to your C++ application, you might want to use the Log4Cxx library. It uses similar macros which you can completely elide from your application, but when logging is enabled, it supports several different levels of logging (based on importance/severity) as well as multiple different "appenders" to which to send logging output (e.g. syslog, console, files, network I/O, etc.).
The full API documentation may be found at Log4Cxx API docs. Also, if you have any Java developers on board who have used Log4J, they should feel right at home with Log4Cxx (and convince you to use it).
Related
I am building somewhat larger c++ code bases than I'm used to. I have a need for both good logging and debugging, at least to the console, and also speed.
Generally, I like to do something like this
// Some header file
bool DEBUG = true;
And then in some other file
if (DEBUG) cout << "Some debugging information" << endl;
The issue with this (among others) is that the branching lowers the speed of the final executable. In order to fix this, I'd have to go into the files at the end and remove all these, and then I couldn't use them again later without saving them to some other file and then putting them back in.
What is the most efficient solution to this quandry? Python decorators provide a nice approach that I'm not certain exists in CPP.
Thanks!
The classic way is to make that DEBUG not a variable, but a preprocessor macro. Then you can have two builds: one with the macro defined to 1, the other with it defined to 0 (or not defined at all, depending on how you plan to use it). Then you can either do #ifdef to completely remove the debug code from being seen by the compiler, or just put it into a regular if, the optimizer will take care of removing the branch with the constant conditional.
I am writing a scientific computation code in C++. There are outputs that I want to write in a console and outputs that I write into a file. However, when debugging after implementing a new feature, it is useful to print out much more information than usual. So far I was just sending more information to std::cout/clog and commented these lines out when not needed.
What I want is like std::clog, which would go into a file when needed, or not do anything at all, when not needed. It is ok, if I need to recompile the code to switch between the two regimes. It is important that nothing happens when not needed, because for a real large calculation the log file would be enormous (or the the console full of rubbish) and all the writing would slow the calculation down.
I am looking for the smallest possible implementation, ideally using only standard libraries for portability.
The obvious solution is to have a global variable, redirect clog to a file and then use an if statement.
bool DEBUG = true;
std::ofstream out("logfile");
std::clog.rdbuf(out.rdbuf());
...
if (DEBUG) std::clog << "my message" << std::endl;
...
Is there a more elegant way of doing this?
Edit:
I would like to avoid using non-standard libraries and preprocessor macros (program is spread across many files and also a bad programming habit in general). One way I could imagine this working, but I don't know how to do it, is to create a globally accessible object that would be able to accept messages using << and would save them to a file. Then I could just comment out the line inside this object class that saves it to a file. However, I don't know how much performance impact may result from passing messages to such a disfunctional object.
You may use any external logging library for C/C++.
Or create your own small implementation with only utilities what you need.
A traditional logging mechanism is build on macros (or inline functions) and looks like:
#define LOG_MESSAGE(msg) \
{
#ifdef DEBUG
// your debug logging
#else
// your release logging, may be leaved empty
#endif // DEBUG
}
It's also useful to add different logging levels: Error, Warning, Info, etc.
I am trying for two weeks to create a DLL to which I can pass strings and get back strings. But still no success.
I tried this on Dev-C++(TDM-GCC 4.9.2) and visual studio community 2015. I searched a lot about this and tried almost every sample code I found but I have no success.
I have to use this DLL with MetaTrader Terminal 4.
Here is a one sample code, which I used. This code compiles successfully but when I send a string to this, from MT4, I get an access violation error.
#ifndef MYLIB_HPP
#define MYLIB_HPP
#include <string>
#ifdef MYLIB_EXPORTS
#define MYLIB_API __declspec(dllimport)
#else
#define MYLIB_API __declspec(dllexport)
#endif
bool MYLIB_API test(const std::string& str);
#endif
bool MYLIB_API MyTest(const std::string& str)
{
return (str == "Hi There");
}
If you do share a C++ string between a DLL and another executable, both need to have been compiled with the same tool-chain. This is because std::string is defined in header only. So, if the DLL and executable use different string headers, they may well be binary incompatible.
If you want to make sure that things do work with different tool-chains, stick to NULL terminated C strings.
You have just experienced one of the MQL4 tricks,the MQL4 string is not a string but a struct thus #import on MQL4 side will make MT4 to inject that, not matching your DLL C-side expectations and the access-violation error is straightforward, as your C-side code tried to access the MQL4 territories...
First rule to design API/DLL: READ the documentation very carefully.
Yes, one may object, that the MQL4 doc is somewhat tricky to follow, but thus more double the Rule#1, read the documentation very, very, very carefully as some important design facts are noted almost hidden in some not very predictable chapters or somewhere in explanations of ENUM tables, compiler directives, pragma-s side-notes et al.
Second rule: design API/DLL interface so as to allow smooth integration
MQL4 has changed the rules somewhere about Build 670+. Good news is, the MetaQuotes has announced, that there will be no further investment on their side into MT4 further developlments, so the MT4-side of the DLL/API integration will hopefully stop from further creeping.
Given your statement, that you design the DLL/API, try to design future-proof specification -- use block of uchar[]-s instead of "interpretations"-sensitive string, pass both inputs and outputs by-reference and return just some form of int aReturnCODE = myDLL_FUNC( byRefParA, byRefParB, byRefRESULT ); and your efforts will result in clean code, better portability among 3rd party language-wrappers and will also minimise your further maintenance costs.
Most likely, your code and the one you're linking against have been compiled with a different ABI for std::string, i.e. the string used by the library has a different memory layout (and sizeof) than the one you're compiling with.
I once ran into this problem when linking against the hdf5 library and using gcc. In this case, the problem could be solved by reverting to a previous ABI, as explained here.
However, the problem also occurred with clang, when such a solution was not available. Thus, to make this all working I had to avoid using std::string in any calls to the library (hdf5 in my case) that was compiled with the different ABI, and instead make do with the hdf5 interface using const char*.
We have a pretty large project here in C++/.NET/Visual Studio, for performance testing we incuded some code that makes it possible to evaluate the execution time between certain points.
PERFORMANCE_TEST BeginMeasureTime("execute someCode")
someCode
PERFORMANCE_TEST EndMeasureTime("execute someCode")
Usually while developing the PERFORMANCE_TEST macro would be set to // so the evaluation code is switched off. So if code / interfaces etc. change and the code after the PERFORMANCE_TEST macro becomes invalid, the developer will not notice that.
Is there any smarter way to have the performance evaluation code only built in a special version of the project but still make sure that it stays consistent? How would you normally do something like that?
One easy way would be to change
PERFORMANCE_TEST xxx
to
PERFORMANCE_TEST(xxx)
Then instead of
#if PERFORMANCE_TEST_ENABLED
#define PERFORMANCE_TEST
#else
#define PERFORMANCE_TEST //
#endif
you could have
#if PERFORMANCE_TEST_ENABLED
#define PERFORMANCE_TEST(x) {x;}
#else
#define PERFORMANCE_TEST(x) if(0) { x; }
#endif
An optimizing compiler should generate no code for the second version if performance tests are disabled (or at the very least it'll not branch on the if), but it'll still be part of the compilation.
Alternatively, if build times aren't a huge concern you could simply always build both versions into separate directories.
It's been a while since I did something like this the following should be what you want. If the MACRO is defined then the function is included, else it the function is a noop and compiled out the code.
#ifdef MACRO
#define MACRO_NAME(arg1, arg2, ...) [code to expand to]
#else
#define MACRO_NAME(arg1, arg2, ...) noop
#endif
Update:
Ok so I slightly got the question a bit incorrect.
Most static analysis tools can be configured to scan certain #defines
CPPCheck for example can be given the following arguments.
-D<ID> Define preprocessor symbol. Unless --max-configs or
--force is used, Cppcheck will only check the given
configuration when -D is used.
Example: '-DDEBUG=1 -D__cplusplus'.
So you can then scan the code twice, thus achieving your goal.
I would say this is the best of both before you can add more scans if you add more #define
Or you can use some of the following to scan more configurations.
-f, --force Force checking of all configurations in files. If used
together with '--max-configs=', the last option is the
one that is effective.
and
--max-configs=<limit>
Maximum number of configurations to check in a file
before skipping it. Default is '12'. If used together
with '--force', the last option is the one that is
effective.
We used this type of operation at a previous company, we build code for WIN32, Pocket PC and WM5 and WM6 all from the same code base but had static checking on all build configurations. But the end result was the removal of non redundant code in all builds.
I'd like to have the possibility to increase the verbosity for debug purposes of my program. Of course I can do that using a switch/flag during runtime. But that can be very inefficient, due to all the 'if' statements I should add to my code.
So, I'd like to add a flag to be used during compilation in order to include optional, usually slow debug operations in my code, without affecting the performance/size of my program when not needed. here's an example:
/* code */
#ifdef _DEBUG_
/* do debug operations here
#endif
so, compiling with -D_DEBUG_ should do the trick. without it, that part won't be included in my program.
Another option (at least for i/o operations) would be to define at least an i/o function, like
#ifdef _DEBUG_
#define LOG(x) std::clog << x << std::endl;
#else
#define LOG(x)
#endif
However, I strongly suspect this probably isn't the cleanest way to do that. So, what would you do instead?
I prefer to use #ifdef with real functions so that the function has an empty body if _DEBUG_ is not defined:
void log(std::string x)
{
#ifdef _DEBUG_
std::cout << x << std::endl;
#endif
}
There are three big reasons for this preference:
When _DEBUG_ is not defined, the function definition is empty and any modern compiler will completely optimize out any call to that function (the definition should be visible inside that translation unit, of course).
The #ifdef guard only has to be applied to a small localized area of code, rather than every time you call log.
You do not need to use lots of macros, avoiding pollution of your code.
You can use macros to change implementation of the function (Like in sftrabbit's solution). That way, no empty places will be left in your code, and the compiler will optimize the "empty" calls away.
You can also use two distinct files for the debug and release implementation, and let your IDE/build script choose the appropriate one; this involves no #defines at all. Just remember the DRY rule and make the clean code reusable in debug scenario.
I would say that his actually is very dependent on the actual problem you are facing. Some problems will benefit more of the second solution, whilst the simple code might be better with simple defines.
Both snippets that you describe are correct ways of using conditional compilation to enable or disable the debugging through a compile-time switch. However, your assertion that checking the debug flags at runtime "can be very inefficient, due to all the 'if' statements I should add to my code" is mostly incorrect: in most practical cases a runtime check does not influence the speed of your program in a detectable way, so if keeping the runtime flag offers you potential advantages (e.g. turning the debugging on to diagnose a problem in production without recompiling) you should go for a run-time flag instead.
For the additional checks, I would rely on the assert (see the assert.h) which does exactly what you need: check when you compile in debug, no check when compiled for the release.
For the verbosity, a more C++ version of what you propose would use a simple Logger class with a boolean as template parameter. But the macro is fine as well if kept within the Logger class.
For commercial software, having SOME debug output that is available at runtime on customer sites is usually a valuable thing to have. I'm not saying everything has to be compiled into the final binary, but it's not at all unusual that customers do things to your code that you don't expect [or that causes the code to behave in ways that you don't expect]. Being able to tell the customer "Well, if you run myprog -v 2 -l logfile.txt and do you usual thing, then email me logfile.txt" is a very, very useful thing to have.
As long as the "if-statement to decide if we log or not" is not in the deepest, darkest jungle in peru, eh, I mean in the deepest nesting levels of your tight, performance critical loop, then it's rarely a problem to leave it in.
So, I personally tend to go for the "always there, not always enabled" approach. THat's not to say that I don't find myself adding some extra logging in the middle of my tight loops sometimes - only to remove it later on when the bug is fixed.
You can avoid the function-like macro when doing conditional compilation. Just define a regular or template function to do the logging and call it inside the:
#ifdef _DEBUG_
/* ... */
#endif
part of the code.
At least in the *Nix universe, the default define for this kind of thing is NDEBUG (read no-debug). If it is defined, your code should skip the debug code. I.e. you would do something like this:
#ifdef NDEBUG
inline void log(...) {}
#else
inline void log(...) { .... }
#endif
An example piece of code I use in my projects. This way, you can use variable argument list and if DEBUG flag is not set, related code is cleared out:
#ifdef DEBUG
#define PR_DEBUG(fmt, ...) \
PR_DEBUG(fmt, ...) printf("[DBG] %s: " fmt, __func__, ## __VA_ARGS__)
#else
#define PR_DEBUG(fmt, ...)
#endif
Usage:
#define DEBUG
<..>
ret = do_smth();
PR_DEBUG("some kind of code returned %d", ret);
Output:
[DBG] some_func: some kind of code returned 0
of course, printf() may be replaced by any output function you use. Furthermore, it can be easily modified so additional information, as for example time stamp, is automatically appended.
For me it depends from application to application.
I've had applications where I wanted to always log (for example, we had an application where in case of errors, clients would take all the logs of the application and send them to us for diagnostics). In such a case, the logging API should probably be based on functions (i.e. not macros) and always defined.
In cases when logging is not always necessary or you need to be able to completely disable it for performance/other reasons, you can define logging macros.
In that case I prefer a single-line macro like this:
#ifdef NDEBUG
#define LOGSTREAM /##/
#else
#define LOGSTREAM std::clog
// or
// #define LOGSTREAM std::ofstream("output.log", std::ios::out|std::ios::app)
#endif
client code:
LOG << "Initializing chipmunk feeding module ...\n";
//...
LOG << "Shutting down chipmunk feeding module ...\n";
It's just like any other feature.
My assumptions:
No global variables
System designed to interfaces
For whatever you want verbose output, create two implementations, one quiet, one verbose.
At application initialisation, choose the implementation you want.
It could be a logger, or a widget, or a memory manager, for example.
Obviously you don't want to duplicate code, so extract the minimum variation you want. If you know what the strategy pattern is, or the decorator pattern, these are the right direction. Follow the open closed principle.