/* UART HEADER */
#define featureA 0xA0
#define featureB 0xB0
#define featureC 0x20
-
-
-
- // increment on feature, value of feature are random
-
-
#define featureZ 0x??
#define CHECK_CHAR(x) ((x==featureA)||(x==featureB)||(x==featureC) ------- (x==featureZ)? TRUE: FALSE)
Hi all, I got a set of UART header that to indicate what the commands for. So every time I am checking the header using the macro, but I realize that when the command is keep increasing and the macro length also keep increasing, it make the code very messy. I am looking for a mechanism to handle this checking when the feature is more and more.
Since this seems to be a run-time check, you can speed up the program considerably by using a look-up table instead. It will also make the code more readable. Assuming you can spare 256 bytes of flash and all codes are unique, then:
bool CHECK_CHAR (uint8_t ch)
{
const bool LOOKUP [256] =
{
[featureA] = true,
[featureB] = true,
[featureC] = true,
};
return LOOKUP[ch];
}
The second best option is a sorted array of uint8_t constants + binary search.
Assuming that your values follow the simple pattern above, this would work:
#define CHECK_CHAR(x) ( ((x)&0xf) == 0 && (x) >= featureA && (x) < featureInvalid )
where you define featureInvalid to be the next logical value after featureZ.
Related
I need a macro variable check at design time (preprocesor), more specific that number to fit in 24 bits.
The macro is intended to be used in a if() statement so I have no idea how to test it.
This is a ARM systick timer (24 bits) and so many time I forgot to #define the right value, especially when change the MCU clock and of course, my if() never fired and this silly mistake was hard to debug.
So in this example, there is a trick to force gcc to ERROR when PARAMETER > 24 bits ?
#define PARAMETER 20000000 // over 24 bits, should throw a error at design time
#define MyMacro(var, par) (var > par)
uint32_t variable;
if(MyMacro(variable,PARAMETER))
{
// do something
// do something WRONG because PARAMETER > 24 bits
// Actually this is working as expected, test for < is valid because
// _Static_assert() is check for TRUE condition
// But I am still trying to find a way to combine this in original macro
_Static_assert(PARAMETER < 0xFFFFFF, "Ooopss... ERROR");
}
Thanks in advance!
Unfortunately, _Static_assert is syntactically defined as a declaration, which means you can't use it directly inside of an expression.
However, _Static_assert isn't needed anyway, because you can perfectly (sans the nice compile time error reporting--but you're a programmer, you should be able to figure out a compile time failure a slightly more technical compile-time error message) emulate it with
#define static_assert_0expr(Truth) ((int)(0*sizeof(struct { int _ : (Truth)?1:-1; })))
(or an equivalent) and that you can fit in an expression (even an integer constant expression) no problem:
#define static_assert_0expr(Truth) ((int)(0*sizeof(struct { int _ : (Truth)?1:-1; })))
#define PARAMETER 20000000 // over 24 bits, should throw a error at design time
#define MyMacro(var, par) (static_assert_0expr((par)<0xffffff) + ((var) > (par)))
//or this, but this is won't preserve integer-constant expressions because of the comma:
/*#define MyMacro(var, par) (static_assert_0expr((par)<0xffffff), ((var) > (par)))*/
//alternatively: (static_assert_0expr(assertion) ? (expr) : (expr)) is the most
//general form (though it leads to larger preprocessor expansions, which may worsen debugging experience with cc -E)
#include <stdint.h>
int main()
{
static_assert_0expr(1)+1;
uint32_t variable;
if(MyMacro(variable,PARAMETER))
{
}
}
The above static_assert_0expr macro could also be implemented with _Static_assert:
#define static_assert_0expr(Truth) \
((int)(0*sizeof(struct { int _; _Static_assert(Truth,""); })))
or you could paste the body of this directly in MyMacro and customize the message (but I consider _Static_assert and its custom compile-time error message feature an unnecessary addition to C and prefer not to use it).
Well, I don't want to reply my own answer, but I think I found a solution that is working (thanks #PSkoicik) and thanks to GCC that allows statement expressions (found in this reply)
Using and returning output in C macro
So basically I could use _Static_assert() inside if() statement, with a helper macro
#define CheckParameter(val) ({bool retval = true; _Static_assert((val)< 0xFFFFFF, "Timer value too large!"); retval;})
Now my macro become
#define MyMacro(var, par) ((var > par) && CheckParameter(par))
Which should work because CheckParameter() will always return TRUE at RUNTIME but at COMPILE time, _Static_assert() will catch my error parameter.
So now I can use
if(MyMacro(variable,PARAMETER))
{
// PAREMETER will be in range
}
Hope I'm not missing something :)
If you need to check that PARAMETER is > 24 bits during compile time you can simply do this:
#define PARAMETER 20000 // over 24 bits, should throw a error at design time
...
#if PARAMETER > (1<<24)
#error PARAMETER > 24 bits
#endif
What you do here is not compile time checking but run time checking:
if(MyMacro(variable,PARAMETER))
{
// do something
// do something WRONG because PARAMETER > 24 bits
}
but what is variable doing here anyway if you just want to know if PARAMETER is > 24 bits?
I am developing firmware for an embedded application with memory constraints. I have a set of commands that need to processed as they are received. Each command falls under different 'buckets' and each 'bucket' gets a range of valid command numbers. I created two ENUMs as shown below to achieve this.
enum
{
BUCKET_1 = 0x100, // Range of 0x100 to 0x1FF
BUCKET_2 = 0x200, // Range of 0x200 to 0x2FF
BUCKET_3 = 0x300, // Range of 0x300 to 0x3FF
...
...
BUCKET_N = 0xN00 // Range of 0xN00 to 0xNFF
} cmd_buckets;
enum
{
//BUCKET_1 commands
CMD_BUCKET_1_START = BUCKET_1,
BUCKET_1_CMD_1,
BUCKET_1_CMD_2,
BUCKET_1_CMD_3,
BUCKET_1_CMD_4,
//Add new commands above this line
BUCKET_1_CMD_MAX,
//BUCKET_2 commands
CMD_BUCKET_2_START = BUCKET_2,
BUCKET_2_CMD_1,
BUCKET_2_CMD_2,
BUCKET_2_CMD_3,
//Add new commands above this line
BUCKET_2_CMD_MAX,
//BUCKET_3 commands
...
...
...
//BUCKET_N commands
CMD_BUCKET_N_START = BUCKET_N
BUCKET_N_CMD_1,
BUCKET_N_CMD_2,
BUCKET_N_CMD_3,
BUCKET_N_CMD_4,
//Add new commands above this line
BUCKET_N_CMD_MAX,
}cmd_codes
When my command handler function receives a command code, it needs to check if the command is enabled before processing it. I plan to use a bitmap for this. Commands can be enabled or disabled from processing during run-time. I can use an int for each group (giving me 32 commands per group, I realize that 0xN00 to 0xN20 are valid command codes and that others codes in the range are wasted). Even though commands codes are wasted, the design choice has the benefit of easily telling the group of the command code when seeing raw data on a console.
Since many developers can add commands to the 'cmd_codes' enum (even new buckets may be added as needed to the 'cmd_buckets' enum), I want to make sure that the number of command codes in each bucket does not exceed 32 (bitmap is int). I want to catch this at compile time rather than run time. Other than checking each BUCKET_N_CMD_MAX value as below and throwing a compile time error, is there a better solution?
#if (BUCKET_1_CMD_MAX > 0x20)
#error ("Number of commands in BUCKET_1 exceeded 32")
#endif
#if (BUCKET_2_CMD_MAX > 0x20)
#error ("Number of commands in BUCKET_2 exceeded 32")
#endif
#if (BUCKET_3_CMD_MAX > 0x20)
#error ("Number of commands in BUCKET_3 exceeded 32")
#endif
...
...
...
#if (BUCKET_N_CMD_MAX > 0x20)
#error ("Number of commands in BUCKET_N exceeded 32")
#endif
Please also suggest if there is a more elegant way to design this.
Thanks, I appreciate your time and patience.
First fix the bug in the code. As mentioned in comments, you have a constant BUCKET_1 = 0x100 which you then assign CMD_BUCKET_1_START = BUCKET_1. The trailing enums will therefore get values 0x101, 0x102, ... and BUCKET_1_CMD_MAX will be 0x106. Since 0x106 is always larger than 0x20, your static assert will always trigger.
Fix that so that it actually checks the total number of items in the enum instead, like this:
#define BUCKET_1_CMD_N (BUCKET_1_CMD_MAX - CMD_BUCKET_1_START)
#define BUCKET_2_CMD_N (BUCKET_2_CMD_MAX - CMD_BUCKET_2_START)
...
Assuming the above is fixed, then you can replace the numerous checks with a single macro. Not a great improvement, but at least it reduces code repetition:
#define BUCKET_MAX 32 // use a defined constant instead of a magic number
// some helper macros:
#define CHECK(n) BUCKET_ ## n ## _CMD_N
#define STRINGIFY(n) #n
// the actual macro:
#define BUCKET_CHECK(n) \
_Static_assert(CHECK(n) <= BUCKET_MAX, \
"Number of commands in BUCKET_" STRINGIFY(n) "_CMD_N exceeds BUCKET_MAX.");
// usage:
int main (void)
{
BUCKET_CHECK(1);
BUCKET_CHECK(2);
}
Output from gcc in case one constant is too large:
error: static assertion failed: "Number of commands in BUCKET_1_CMD_N exceeds BUCKET_MAX."
note: in expansion of macro 'BUCKET_CHECK'
EDIT
If combining the bug fix with the check macro, you would get this:
#define BUCKET_MAX 32
#define CHECK(n) (BUCKET_##n##_CMD_MAX - CMD_BUCKET_##n##_START)
#define STRINGIFY(n) #n
#define BUCKET_CHECK(n) \
_Static_assert(CHECK(n) <= BUCKET_MAX, \
"Number of commands in BUCKET " STRINGIFY(n) " exceeds BUCKET_MAX.");
int main (void)
{
BUCKET_CHECK(1);
BUCKET_CHECK(2);
}
First of all, preprocessor commands do not work that way. The C preprocessor is able to "see" only names instruced by the #define statement or passes as compiler flags. It is not able to see constants defined as part of an enum or with the const keyword. You should use _Static_assert to validate the commands instead of the preprocessor.
As for the commands, I would suggest to have all the commands numbered in the range 0..0x20:
enum {
BUCKET_1_CMD_1,
BUCKET_1_CMD_2,
...
BUCKET_1_CMD_MAX,
};
enum {
BUCKET_2_CMD_1,
BUCKET_2_CMD_2,
...
BUCKET_2_CMD_MAX,
};
Then you need only a single guard value to check if all the commands are in valid range:
#define MAX_COMMAND 0x20
_Static_assert(BUCKET_1_CMD_MAX <= MAX_COMMAND, "too many bucket 1 commands");
_Static_assert(BUCKET_2_CMD_MAX <= MAX_COMMAND, "too many bucket 2 commands");
To use the commands, bitwise-or them together with the bucket "offset":
enum {
BUCKET_1 = 0x100,
BUCKET_2 = 0x200,
};
...
int cmd = BUCKET_2 | BUCKET_2_CMD_1;
Is there a cleaner/simpler way to do this?
The below works OK, but I think it's ugly - I'd like a solution that doesn't need a separate #define for every possible invalid value passed as "port".
#define _port_A_config_digital(mask) // do nothing; this port is always digital
#define _port_B_config_digital(mask) AD1PCFGSET = (mask)
#define _port_C_config_digital(mask)
#define _port_D_config_digital(mask)
#define _port_E_config_digital(mask)
#define _port_F_config_digital(mask)
#define _port_G_config_digital(mask)
#define _port_H_config_digital(mask)
#define _port_I_config_digital(mask)
#define _port_J_config_digital(mask)
#define _port_K_config_digital(mask)
#define ConfigDigitalBits(port, mask) _port_##port##_config_digital(mask)
If "port" is anything other than B, I want a null statement.
I'd like to get rid of all the #defines other than the one that does something.
I want to do this because on this MCU all ports other than B are always digital and there's nothing to be done.
But calling ConfigDigitalBits() ought to be a valid thing to do for any port.
You could do something like
#define CONFIG_DIGITAL_BITS(PORT, MASK) \
do { if (PORT == 'B') AD1PCFGSET = (MASK); } while (0)
and trust (or check by reading the assembly) your compiler to evaluate the if condition at compile-time. That is,
CONFIG_DIGITAL_BITS('B', 0x42);
would generate code for only
AD1PCFGSET = 0x42;
and
CONFIG_DIGITAL_BITS('A', 0x42);
would generate no code at all.
The proposed code above has the problem that it ignores errors. For example,
CONFIG_DIGITAL_BITS('Z', 0x42);
would happily compile although there is no port Z. You could assert on this but this will only catch the error at run-time.
Once you got to this, consider getting rid of the macro at whole and use an inline function instead that will also permit constant propagation.
inline void
config_digital_bits(const char port, const unsigned mask)
{
assert(port >= 'A' && port <= 'K');
if (port == 'B')
AD1PCFGSET = mask;
}
I am trying to build a macro that runs a code only once.
Very useful for example if you loop a code and want something inside to happen only once. The easy to use method:
static int checksum;
for( ; ; )
{
if(checksum == 0) { checksum == 1; // ... }
}
But it is a bit wasteful and confusing. So I have this macros that use checking bits instead of checking true/false state of a variable:
#define CHECKSUM(d) static d checksum_boolean
#define CHECKSUM_IF(x) if( ~(checksum_boolean >> x) & 1) \
{ \
checksum_boolean |= 1 << x;
#define CHECKSUM_END }1
The 1 at the end is to force the user to put semi-colon at the end. In my compiler this is allowed.
The problem is figuring out how to do this without having the user to specify x (n bit to be checked).
So he can use this:
CHECKSUM(char); // 7 run-once codes can be used
for( ; ; )
{
CHECKSUM_IF
// code..
CHECKSUM_END;
}
Ideas how can I achieve this?
I guess you're saying you want the macro to somehow automatically track which bit of your bitmask contains the flag for the current test. You could do it like this:
#define CHECKSUM(d) static d checksum_boolean; \
d checksum_mask
#define CHECKSUM_START do { checksum_mask = 1; } while (0)
#define CHECKSUM_IF do { \
if (!(checksum_boolean & checksum_mask)) { \
checksum_boolean |= checksum_mask;
#define CHECKSUM_END \
} \
checksum_mask <<= 1; \
} while (0)
#define CHECKSUM_RESET(i) do { checksum_boolean &= ~((uintmax_t) 1 << (i)); } while (0)
Which you might use like this:
CHECKSUM(char); // 7 run-once codes can be used
for( ; ; )
{
CHECKSUM_START;
CHECKSUM_IF
// code..
CHECKSUM_END;
CHECKSUM_IF
// other code..
CHECKSUM_END;
}
Note, however, that that has severe limitations:
The CHECKSUM_START macro and all the corresponding CHECKSUM_IF macros must all appear in the same scope
Control must always pass through CHECKSUM_START before any of the CHECKSUM_IF blocks
Control must always reach the CHECKSUM_IF blocks in the same order. It may only skip a CHECKSUM_IF block if it also skips all subsequent ones that use the same checksum bitmask.
Those constraints arise because the preprocessor cannot count.
To put it another way, barring macro redefinitions, a macro without any arguments always expands to exactly the same text. Therefore, if you don't use a macro argument to indicate which flag bit applies in each case then that needs to be tracked at run time.
I am writing C code (not c++) for a target with very limited ROM, but I want the code to be easy to customize for other similar targets with #defines. I have #defines used to specify the address and other values of the device, but as a code-saving technique, these values are necessary bitwise reversed. I can enter these by first manually reversing them, but this would be confusing for future use. Can I define some sort of macro that performs a bitwise reversal?
As seen here (Best Algorithm for Bit Reversal ( from MSB->LSB to LSB->MSB) in C), there is no single operation to switch the order in c. Because of this, if you were to create a #define macro to perform the operation, it would actually perform quite a bit of work on each use (as well as significantly increasing the size of your binary if used often). I would recommend manually creating the other ordered constant and just using clear documentation to ensure the information about them is not lost.
I think something like this ought to work:
#define REV2(x) ((((x)&1)<<1) | (((x)>>1)&1))
#define REV4(x) ((REV2(x)<<2) | (REV2((x)>>2)))
#define REV8(x) ((REV4(x)<<4) | (REV4((x)>>4)))
#define REV16(x) ((REV8(x)<<8) | (REV8((x)>>8)))
#define REV32(x) ((REV16(x)<<16) | (REV16((x)>>16)))
It uses only simple operations which are all safe for constant expressions, and it's very likely that the compiler will evaluate these at compile time.
You can ensure that they're evaluated at compile time by using them in a context which requires a constant expression. For example, you could initialize a static variable or declare an enum:
enum {
VAL_A = SOME_NUMBER,
LAV_A = REV32(VAL_A),
};
For the sake of readable code I'd not recommend it, but you could do something like
#define NUMBER 2
#define BIT_0(number_) ((number_ & (1<<0)) >> 0)
#define BIT_1(number_) ((number_ & (1<<1)) >> 1)
#define REVERSE_BITS(number_) ((BIT_1(number_) << 0) + (BIT_0(number_) << 1))
int main() {
printf("%d --> %d", NUMBER, REVERSE_BITS(NUMBER));
}
There are techniques for this kind of operation (see the Boost Preprocessor library, for example), but most of the time the easiest solution is to use an external preprocessor written in some language in which bit manipulation is easier.
For example, here is a little python script which will replace all instances of #REV(xxxx)# where xxxx is a hexadecimal string with the bit-reversed constant of the same length:
#!/bin/python
import re
import sys
reg = re.compile("""#REV\(([0-9a-fA-F]+)\)#""")
def revbits(s):
return "0X%x" % int(bin(int(s, base=16))[-1:1:-1].ljust(4*len(s), '0'), base=2)
for l in sys.stdin:
sys.stdout.write(reg.sub(lambda m: revbits(m.group(1)), l))
And here is a version in awk:
awk 'BEGIN{R["0"]="0";R["1"]="8";R["2"]="4";R["3"]="C";
R["4"]="2";R["5"]="A";R["6"]="6";R["7"]="E";
R["8"]="1";R["9"]="9";R["A"]="5";R["B"]="D";
R["C"]="3";R["D"]="B";R["E"]="7";R["F"]="F";
R["a"]="5";R["b"]="D";R["c"]="3";R["d"]="B";
R["e"]="7";R["f"]="F";}
function bitrev(x, i, r) {
r = ""
for (i = length(x); i; --i)
r = r R[substr(x,i,1)]
return r
}
{while (match($0, /#REV\([[:xdigit:]]+\)#/))
$0 = substr($0, 1, RSTART-1) "0X" bitrev(substr($0, RSTART+5, RLENGTH-7)) substr($0, RSTART+RLENGTH)
}1' \
<<<"foo #REV(23)# yy #REV(9)# #REV(DEADBEEF)#"
foo 0X32 yy 0X9 0Xfeebdaed