I wish to determine the types of the parameters passed to a function using VA_ARGS in order to route it to the right handler, but in compile time (and not inside a function with va_args()).
by determine type i mean i need to know if the trace contains only integers or has strings in it as well, but i wish it will be in compile time.
for example:
#define TRACE_HANDLER(type_branch) (Invoke_ ## type_branch)
#define TYPE_ARGS(args) ______//Determine if all arguments are uint32________
#define TRACE_(formatString,...) TRACE_HANDLER(TYPE_ARGS(__VA_ARGS__))(__VA_ARGS__)
#define TRACE(Id,formatString,...) TRACE_(formatString,__VA_ARGS__)
any ideas?
thanks!
You can do a compile-time dispatch on the type of an expression with the _Generic operator. Note that this is part of the main C language, not preprocessor macros.
int x = 0;
_Generic(x, int: invoke_int,
float: invoke_float,
double: invoke_double)(x); //calls invoke_int with x
The expression you give as the first argument to _Generic is only used for its type, at compile-time, to select a value to inline (in this case, a function to pass the runtime variable).
_Generic is only intended for use with a single parameter, and as a consequence most examples only show how to overload functions with a single argument. You could engage in some hefty metaprogramming to create deeply-nested _Generic trees that chew their way through all passed arguments, but here's one much simpler possible way to overload a function with multiple arguments of multiple types:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
// specialized definitions
void overload_1(int a, int b, int c) {
printf("all ints (%d, %d, %d)\n", a, b, c);
}
void overload_2(int a, char * b, int c) {
printf("b is a string (%d, %s, %d)\n", a, b, c);
}
void overload_3(char * a, int b, char * c) {
printf("a and c are strings (%s, %d, %s)\n", a, b, c);
}
void static_error(int l) { printf("error with overload on %d\n", l); exit(1); }
// type indices
enum ARG_TYPE {
INT = 0, CHAR_P
};
// get the ID of a specialization by the list of arg types
static inline int get_overload_id(int ac, int av[]) {
return (ac == 3 && av[0] == INT && av[1] == INT && av[2] == INT) ? 1
: (ac == 3 && av[0] == INT && av[1] == CHAR_P && av[2] == INT) ? 2
: (ac == 3 && av[0] == CHAR_P && av[1] == INT && av[2] == CHAR_P) ? 3
: -1 //error
;
}
// overloaded definition
#define overload(...) overload_ex(get_overload_id(M_NARGS(__VA_ARGS__), (int[]){ M_FOR_EACH(GET_ARG_TYPE, __VA_ARGS__) }), __VA_ARGS__)
#define overload_ex(getID, ...) \
((getID == 1) ? overload_1(GET_ARG(0, INT, __VA_ARGS__), GET_ARG(1, INT, __VA_ARGS__), GET_ARG(2, INT, __VA_ARGS__)) \
:(getID == 2) ? overload_2(GET_ARG(0, INT, __VA_ARGS__), GET_ARG(1, CHAR_P, __VA_ARGS__), GET_ARG(2, INT, __VA_ARGS__)) \
:(getID == 3) ? overload_3(GET_ARG(0, CHAR_P, __VA_ARGS__), GET_ARG(1, INT, __VA_ARGS__), GET_ARG(2, CHAR_P, __VA_ARGS__)) \
:static_error(__LINE__))
#define GET_ARG_TYPE(A) _Generic(((void)0, (A)), int: INT, char*: CHAR_P),
#define GET_ARG(N, T, ...) GET_ARG_DEFAULT_##T(M_GET_ELEM(N, __VA_ARGS__,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0))
#define GET_ARG_DEFAULT_INT(A) _Generic((A), int: (A), default: 0)
#define GET_ARG_DEFAULT_CHAR_P(A) _Generic(((void)0, (A)), char*: (A), default: NULL)
// metaprogramming utility macros (not directly related to this
#define M_NARGS(...) M_NARGS_(__VA_ARGS__, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0)
#define M_NARGS_(_10, _9, _8, _7, _6, _5, _4, _3, _2, _1, N, ...) N
#define M_CONC(A, B) M_CONC_(A, B)
#define M_CONC_(A, B) A##B
#define M_FOR_EACH(ACTN, ...) M_CONC(M_FOR_EACH_, M_NARGS(__VA_ARGS__)) (ACTN, __VA_ARGS__)
#define M_FOR_EACH_0(ACTN, E) E
#define M_FOR_EACH_1(ACTN, E) ACTN(E)
#define M_FOR_EACH_2(ACTN, E, ...) ACTN(E) M_FOR_EACH_1(ACTN, __VA_ARGS__)
#define M_FOR_EACH_3(ACTN, E, ...) ACTN(E) M_FOR_EACH_2(ACTN, __VA_ARGS__)
#define M_FOR_EACH_4(ACTN, E, ...) ACTN(E) M_FOR_EACH_3(ACTN, __VA_ARGS__)
#define M_FOR_EACH_5(ACTN, E, ...) ACTN(E) M_FOR_EACH_4(ACTN, __VA_ARGS__)
#define M_GET_ELEM(N, ...) M_CONC(M_GET_ELEM_, N)(__VA_ARGS__)
#define M_GET_ELEM_0(_0, ...) _0
#define M_GET_ELEM_1(_0, _1, ...) _1
#define M_GET_ELEM_2(_0, _1, _2, ...) _2
#define M_GET_ELEM_3(_0, _1, _2, _3, ...) _3
#define M_GET_ELEM_4(_0, _1, _2, _3, _4, ...) _4
#define M_GET_ELEM_5(_0, _1, _2, _3, _4, _5, ...) _5
// (end of utility stuff)
int main(void) {
overload(1, 2, 3); // prints "all ints (1, 2, 3)"
overload(1, "two", 3); // prints "b is a string (1, two, 3)"
overload("one", 2, "three"); // prints "a and c are strings (one, 2, three)"
}
(M_NARGS, M_FOR_EACH and M_GET_ELEM are utility macros... you can extend them for more arguments easily, but they aren't directly connected to this.)
The way this works is to build a big ternary-operator conditional expression that contains all possible specializations for the function. We use the GET_ARG macro for each argument passed to a specialization, to choose using _Generic whether to supply an actual argument (if it's the right type for this branch), or a suitable default replacement (if this is the wrong one, in which case it will just go unused). _Generic is also mapped over all arguments using M_FOR_EACH to build a "runtime" array of type-id integers. This array, plus the number of arguments, is passed to get_overload_id to get the integer ID of the function we actually want to call, for use as a controlling expression in the big ternary expression.
Despite using runtime-level C constructs (a big ternary with all variations, a dispatch function to control it), this actually doesn't have any real runtime cost: since the arguments to the dispatch function are constant and it itself is static inline, GCC (and presumably any other half-decent compiler) can completely inline it and optimise out all of the unused branches of the big ternary, leaving only the specialization we actually want in the generated assembly (you can compile with gcc -S and see that this is the case). It is effectively a completely compile-time operation.
There is no way to do this. By the time preprocessor does the macro expansion, all parameters are treated as text. Compiler hasn't even started analyzing the C code, so types don't even exist yet.
Only way to make it work is to use explicit type parameter:
#define TRACE(Id, type_branch, formatString,...)
I am trying to write a variadic macro in C(Not C++ so I cannot use Boost) that allows to assign function pointers like following:
#define INIT_METHODS(name,...)
typedef struct{
void (*method1)();
}data1_t;
typedef struct{
void (*method1)();
void (*method2)();
}data2_t;
void function1(){}
void function2(){}
data1_t ptr1 = calloc(sizeof(data1,1));
data2_t ptr2 = calloc(sizeof(data2,1));
INIT_METHODS(ptr1, method1, function1);
INIT_MEGHODS(ptr2, method1,function1, method2, function2);
I am hoping that the macro will generate following code(the size of the variable arguments list should always be even)
ptr1->method1 = function1;
ptr2->method1 = function1;ptr2->method2 = function2;
Unfortunately, I was not able to do it. Following is my attempt.
#define VA_NARGS_IMPL(_1,_2,_3,_4,_5,_6,_7,_8,N,...) N
#define VA_NARGS(...) VA_NARGS_IMPL(__VA_ARGS__, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0)
#define setfunc1 (name,a8) a8
#define setfunc2 (name, a7, a8) name->a7=setfunc1(name,a8)
#define setfunc3 (name, a6, a7, a8) a6;setfunc2(name,a7,a8)
#define setfunc4 (name, a5, a6, a7, a8) name->a5=setfunc3(name,a6,a7,a8)
#define setfunc5 (name, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8) a4;setfun4(name,a5,a6,a7,a8)
#define setfunc6 (name, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8) name->a3=setfunc5(name,a4,a5,a6,a7,a8)
#define setfunc7 (name, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8) a2;setfunc6(name,a3,a4,a5,a6,a7,a8)
#define setfunc8 (name, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8) \
name->a1=setfunc7(name,a2,a3,a4,a5,a6,a7,a8)
#define INIT_METHODSP(name, count, ...) setfunc##count(name, __VA_ARGS__)
#define INIT_METHODS (name, ...) INIT_METHODSP(name, VA_NARGS(__VA_ARGS__), __VA_ARGS__))
Preliminary observations
You should note that the space between setfunc1 and the open parenthesis in:
#define setfunc1 (name,a8) a8
means that the name setfunc1 is an object-like macro, not a function-like macro. If you want (name, a8) to be arguments to a function-like macro, the open parenthesis must not have any space (or comment) after the macro name when you define the macro. When you use the macro, you can have any amount of white space (including comments) between the macro name and its argument list, but not when defining the macro.
Defining INIT_METHODS
You can do what you want — though I still have major reservations about whether it is appropriate to do it.
#define VA_NARGS_IMPL(_1, _2, _3, _4, _5, _6, _7, _8, N, ...) N
#define VA_NARGS(...) VA_NARGS_IMPL(__VA_ARGS__, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0)
#define INIT_METHODSP(name, count, ...) setfunc##count(name, __VA_ARGS__)
#define INIT_METHODEV(name, count, ...) INIT_METHODSP(name, count, __VA_ARGS__)
#define INIT_METHODS(name, ...) INIT_METHODEV(name, VA_NARGS(__VA_ARGS__), __VA_ARGS__)
#define setfunc2(p, m1, f1) p->m1 = f1
#define setfunc4(p, m1, f1, ...) setfunc2(p, m1, f1); setfunc2(p, __VA_ARGS__)
#define setfunc6(p, m1, f1, ...) setfunc2(p, m1, f1); setfunc4(p, __VA_ARGS__)
#define setfunc8(p, m1, f1, ...) setfunc2(p, m1, f1); setfunc6(p, __VA_ARGS__)
typedef struct{
void (*method1)(void);
}data1_t;
typedef struct{
void (*method1)(void);
void (*method2)(void);
}data2_t;
typedef struct{
void (*method1)(void);
void (*method2)(void);
void (*method3)(void);
void (*method4)(void);
}data4_t;
void function1(void){}
void function2(void){}
data1_t *ptr1 = calloc(sizeof(data1_t), 1));
data2_t *ptr2 = calloc(sizeof(data2_t), 1));
data2_t *ptr4 = calloc(sizeof(data4_t), 1));
INIT_METHODS(ptr1, method1, function1);
INIT_METHODS(ptr2, method1, function1, method2, function2);
INIT_METHODS(ptr4, method1, function1, method2, function2, method3, function3, method4, function4);
Explanation
The VA_NARGS_IMPL and VA_NARGS macros are unchanged apart from spacing or lack thereof.
The INIT_METHODEV macro triggers evaluation (hence the EV) of the count argument. Without this macro, you get to see expansions such as:
setfuncVA_NARGS(method1, function1)(ptr1, method1, function1);
which really isn't very helpful.
The setfuncN macros have one pointer argument (p) and N/2 pairs of arguments listing member and function to initialize it to. Note that there isn't a semicolon after the expansion of setfunc2; that is provided by the semicolon after the invocation of INIT_METHODS.
The generalization of the setfuncN macros to more elements is straight-forward (though you'll need to modify VA_NARGS and VA_NARGS_IMPL to handle more arguments too).
The lines defining ptr1 etc were fixed to:
Define pointers instead of structures.
Use sizeof() correctly.
Also, all function pointers and definitions have strict prototypes. When you declare something like void (*method1)(); in C, you are defining a pointer to a function that returns void but takes an indeterminate but not variadic argument list. (In C++, it would be a pointer to a function that takes no arguments, but this is C, not C++.) The 'not variadic' bit means that the function prototype would not contain ellipsis .... All functions that take a variadic argument list must have a full prototype in scope when used.
Output
$gcc -std=c99 -E vma2.c
# 1 "vma2.c"
# 1 "<command-line>"
# 1 "vma2.c"
# 13 "vma2.c"
typedef struct{
void (*method1)(void);
}data1_t;
typedef struct{
void (*method1)(void);
void (*method2)(void);
}data2_t;
typedef struct{
void (*method1)(void);
void (*method2)(void);
void (*method3)(void);
void (*method4)(void);
}data4_t;
void function1(void){}
void function2(void){}
data1_t *ptr1 = calloc(sizeof(data1_t), 1));
data2_t *ptr2 = calloc(sizeof(data2_t), 1));
data2_t *ptr4 = calloc(sizeof(data4_t), 1));
ptr1->method1 = function1;
ptr2->method1 = function1; ptr2->method2 = function2;
ptr4->method1 = function1; ptr4->method2 = function2; ptr4->method3 = function3; ptr4->method4 = function4;
$
This looks like what I think you wanted.
Note that the code passes the preprocessor; it won't pass the compiler proper as written because:
function3 and function4 are undeclared.
Assignments like the calloc calls must be in the body of a function.
The assignments that initialize the structures need to be in the body of a function too.
Is there some way of getting optional parameters with C++ Macros? Some sort of overloading would be nice too.
Here's one way to do it. It uses the list of arguments twice, first to form the name of the helper macro, and then to pass the arguments to that helper macro. It uses a standard trick to count the number of arguments to a macro.
enum
{
plain = 0,
bold = 1,
italic = 2
};
void PrintString(const char* message, int size, int style)
{
}
#define PRINT_STRING_1_ARGS(message) PrintString(message, 0, 0)
#define PRINT_STRING_2_ARGS(message, size) PrintString(message, size, 0)
#define PRINT_STRING_3_ARGS(message, size, style) PrintString(message, size, style)
#define GET_4TH_ARG(arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, ...) arg4
#define PRINT_STRING_MACRO_CHOOSER(...) \
GET_4TH_ARG(__VA_ARGS__, PRINT_STRING_3_ARGS, \
PRINT_STRING_2_ARGS, PRINT_STRING_1_ARGS, )
#define PRINT_STRING(...) PRINT_STRING_MACRO_CHOOSER(__VA_ARGS__)(__VA_ARGS__)
int main(int argc, char * const argv[])
{
PRINT_STRING("Hello, World!");
PRINT_STRING("Hello, World!", 18);
PRINT_STRING("Hello, World!", 18, bold);
return 0;
}
This makes it easier for the caller of the macro, but not the writer.
With great respect to Derek Ledbetter for his answer — and with apologies for reviving an old question.
Getting an understanding of what it was doing and picking up elsewhere on the ability to preceed the __VA_ARGS__ with ## allowed me to come up with a variation...
// The multiple macros that you would need anyway [as per: Crazy Eddie]
#define XXX_0() <code for no arguments>
#define XXX_1(A) <code for one argument>
#define XXX_2(A,B) <code for two arguments>
#define XXX_3(A,B,C) <code for three arguments>
#define XXX_4(A,B,C,D) <code for four arguments>
// The interim macro that simply strips the excess and ends up with the required macro
#define XXX_X(x,A,B,C,D,FUNC, ...) FUNC
// The macro that the programmer uses
#define XXX(...) XXX_X(,##__VA_ARGS__,\
XXX_4(__VA_ARGS__),\
XXX_3(__VA_ARGS__),\
XXX_2(__VA_ARGS__),\
XXX_1(__VA_ARGS__),\
XXX_0(__VA_ARGS__)\
)
For non-experts like me who stumble upon the answer, but can't quite see how it works, I'll step through the actual processing, starting with the following code...
XXX();
XXX(1);
XXX(1,2);
XXX(1,2,3);
XXX(1,2,3,4);
XXX(1,2,3,4,5); // Not actually valid, but included to show the process
Becomes...
XXX_X(, XXX_4(), XXX_3(), XXX_2(), XXX_1(), XXX_0() );
XXX_X(, 1, XXX_4(1), XXX_3(1), XXX_2(1), XXX_1(1), XXX_0(1) );
XXX_X(, 1, 2, XXX_4(1,2), XXX_3(1,2), XXX_2(1,2), XXX_1(1,2), XXX_0(1,2) );
XXX_X(, 1, 2, 3, XXX_4(1,2,3), XXX_3(1,2,3), XXX_2(1,2,3), XXX_1(1,2,3), XXX_0(1,2,3) );
XXX_X(, 1, 2, 3, 4, XXX_4(1,2,3,4), XXX_3(1,2,3,4), XXX_2(1,2,3,4), XXX_1(1,2,3,4), XXX_0(1,2,3,4) );
XXX_X(, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, XXX_4(1,2,3,4,5), XXX_3(1,2,3,4,5), XXX_2(1,2,3,4,5), XXX_1(1,2,3,4,5), XXX_0(1,2,3,4,5) );
Which becomes just the sixth argument...
XXX_0();
XXX_1(1);
XXX_2(1,2);
XXX_3(1,2,3);
XXX_4(1,2,3,4);
5;
PS: Remove the #define for XXX_0 to get a compile error [ie: if a no-argument option is not allowed].
PPS: Would be nice to have the invalid situations (eg: 5) be something that gives a clearer compilation error to the programmer!
PPPS: I'm not an expert, so I'm very happy to hear comments (good, bad or other)!
With greatest respect to Derek Ledbetter, David Sorkovsky, Syphorlate for their answers, together with the ingenious method to detect empty macro arguments by Jens Gustedt at
https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/detect-empty-macro-arguments/
finally I come out with something that incorporates all the tricks, so that the solution
Uses only standard C99 macros to achieve function overloading, no GCC/CLANG/MSVC extension involved (i.e., comma swallowing by the specific expression , ##__VA_ARGS__ for GCC/CLANG, and implicit swallowing by ##__VA_ARGS__ for MSVC). So feel free to pass the missing --std=c99 to your compiler if you wish =)
Works for zero argument, as well as unlimited number of arguments, if you expand it further to suit your needs
Works reasonably cross-platform, at least tested for
GNU/Linux + GCC (GCC 4.9.2 on CentOS 7.0 x86_64)
GNU/Linux + CLANG/LLVM, (CLANG/LLVM 3.5.0 on CentOS 7.0 x86_64)
OS X + Xcode, (XCode 6.1.1 on OS X Yosemite 10.10.1)
Windows + Visual Studio, (Visual Studio 2013 Update 4 on Windows 7 SP1 64 bits)
For the lazies, just skip to the very last of this post to copy the source. Below is the detailed explanation, which hopefully helps and inspires all people looking for the general __VA_ARGS__ solutions like me. =)
Here's how it goes. First define the user-visible overloaded "function", I named it create, and the related actual function definition realCreate, and the macro definitions with different number of arguments CREATE_2, CREATE_1, CREATE_0, as shown below:
#define create(...) MACRO_CHOOSER(__VA_ARGS__)(__VA_ARGS__)
void realCreate(int x, int y)
{
printf("(%d, %d)\n", x, y);
}
#define CREATE_2(x, y) realCreate(x, y)
#define CREATE_1(x) CREATE_2(x, 0)
#define CREATE_0() CREATE_1(0)
The MACRO_CHOOSER(__VA_ARGS__) part ultimately resolves to the macro definition names, and the second (__VA_ARGS__) part comprises their parameter lists. So a user's call to create(10) resolves to CREATE_1(10), the CREATE_1 part comes from MACRO_CHOOSER(__VA_ARGS__), and the (10) part comes from the second (__VA_ARGS__).
The MACRO_CHOOSER uses the trick that, if __VA_ARGS__ is empty, the following expression is concatenated into a valid macro call by the preprocessor:
NO_ARG_EXPANDER __VA_ARGS__ () // simply shrinks to NO_ARG_EXPANDER()
Ingeniusly, we can define this resulting macro call as
#define NO_ARG_EXPANDER() ,,CREATE_0
Note the two commas, they are explained soon. The next useful macro is
#define MACRO_CHOOSER(...) CHOOSE_FROM_ARG_COUNT(NO_ARG_EXPANDER __VA_ARGS__ ())
so the calls of
create();
create(10);
create(20, 20);
are actually expanded to
CHOOSE_FROM_ARG_COUNT(,,CREATE_0)();
CHOOSE_FROM_ARG_COUNT(NO_ARG_EXPANDER 10 ())(10);
CHOOSE_FROM_ARG_COUNT(NO_ARG_EXPANDER 20, 20 ())(20, 20);
As the macro name suggests, we are to count number of arguments later. Here comes another trick: the preprocessor only does simple text replacement. It infers the number of arguments of a macro call merely from the number of commas it sees inside the parentheses. The actual "arguments" separated by commas need not to be of valid syntax. They can be any text. That's to say, in the above example, NO_ARG_EXPANDER 10 () is counted as 1 argument for the middle call. NO_ARG_EXPANDER 20 and 20 () are counted as 2 arguments for the bottom call respectively.
If we use the following helper macros to further expand them
##define CHOOSE_FROM_ARG_COUNT(...) \
FUNC_RECOMPOSER((__VA_ARGS__, CREATE_2, CREATE_1, ))
#define FUNC_RECOMPOSER(argsWithParentheses) \
FUNC_CHOOSER argsWithParentheses
The trailing , after CREATE_1 is a work-around for GCC/CLANG, suppressing a (false positive) error saying that ISO C99 requires rest arguments to be used when passing -pedantic to your compiler. The FUNC_RECOMPOSER is a work-around for MSVC, or it can not count number of arguments (i.e., commas) inside the parentheses of macro calls correctly. The results are further resolved to
FUNC_CHOOSER (,,CREATE_0, CREATE_2, CREATE_1, )();
FUNC_CHOOSER (NO_ARG_EXPANDER 10 (), CREATE_2, CREATE_1, )(10);
FUNC_CHOOSER (NO_ARG_EXPANDER 20, 20 (), CREATE_2, CREATE_1, )(20, 20);
As the eagle-eyed you may have seen, the last only step we need is to employ a standard argument counting trick to finally pick the wanted macro version names:
#define FUNC_CHOOSER(_f1, _f2, _f3, ...) _f3
which resolves the results to
CREATE_0();
CREATE_1(10);
CREATE_2(20, 20);
and certainly gives us the desired, actual function calls:
realCreate(0, 0);
realCreate(10, 10);
realCreate(20, 20);
Putting all together, with some rearrangement of statements for better readability, the whole source of the 2-argument example is here:
#include <stdio.h>
void realCreate(int x, int y)
{
printf("(%d, %d)\n", x, y);
}
#define CREATE_2(x, y) realCreate(x, y)
#define CREATE_1(x) CREATE_2(x, 0)
#define CREATE_0() CREATE_1(0)
#define FUNC_CHOOSER(_f1, _f2, _f3, ...) _f3
#define FUNC_RECOMPOSER(argsWithParentheses) FUNC_CHOOSER argsWithParentheses
#define CHOOSE_FROM_ARG_COUNT(...) FUNC_RECOMPOSER((__VA_ARGS__, CREATE_2, CREATE_1, ))
#define NO_ARG_EXPANDER() ,,CREATE_0
#define MACRO_CHOOSER(...) CHOOSE_FROM_ARG_COUNT(NO_ARG_EXPANDER __VA_ARGS__ ())
#define create(...) MACRO_CHOOSER(__VA_ARGS__)(__VA_ARGS__)
int main()
{
create();
create(10);
create(20, 20);
//create(30, 30, 30); // Compilation error
return 0;
}
Although complicated, ugly, burdening the API developer, there comes a solution for overloading and setting optional parameters of C/C++ functions to us crazy people. The usage of the out-coming overloaded APIs become very enjoyable and pleasant. =)
If there is any further possible simplification of this approach, please do let me know at
https://github.com/jason-deng/C99FunctionOverload
Again special thanks to all of the brilliant people that inspired and led me to achieve this piece of work! =)
C++ macros haven't changed from C. Since C didn't have overloading and default arguments for functions, it certainly didn't have them for macros. So to answer your question: no, those features don't exist for macros. Your only option is to define multiple macros with different names (or not use macros at all).
As a sidenote: In C++ it's generally considered good practice to move away from macros as much as possible. If you need features like this, there's a good chance you're overusing macros.
For anyone painfully searching some VA_NARGS solution that works with Visual C++. Following macro worked for me flawlessly(also with zero parameters!) in visual c++ express 2010:
#define VA_NUM_ARGS_IMPL(_1,_2,_3,_4,_5,_6,_7,_8,_9,_10,_11,_12,_13,_14,_15,_16,_17,_18,_19,_20,_21,_22,_23,_24,N,...) N
#define VA_NUM_ARGS_IMPL_(tuple) VA_NUM_ARGS_IMPL tuple
#define VA_NARGS(...) bool(#__VA_ARGS__) ? (VA_NUM_ARGS_IMPL_((__VA_ARGS__, 24,23,22,21,20,19,18,17,16,15,14,13,12,11,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1))) : 0
If you want a macro with optional parameters you can do:
//macro selection(vc++)
#define SELMACRO_IMPL(_1,_2,_3, N,...) N
#define SELMACRO_IMPL_(tuple) SELMACRO_IMPL tuple
#define mymacro1(var1) var1
#define mymacro2(var1,var2) var2*var1
#define mymacro3(var1,var2,var3) var1*var2*var3
#define mymacro(...) SELMACRO_IMPL_((__VA_ARGS__, mymacro3(__VA_ARGS__), mymacro2(__VA_ARGS__), mymacro1(__VA_ARGS__)))
That worked for me aswell in vc. But it doesn't work for zero parameters.
int x=99;
x=mymacro(2);//2
x=mymacro(2,2);//4
x=mymacro(2,2,2);//8
gcc/g++ supports varargs macros but I don't think this is standard, so use it at your own risk.
More concise version of Derek Ledbetter's code:
enum
{
plain = 0,
bold = 1,
italic = 2
};
void PrintString(const char* message = NULL, int size = 0, int style = 0)
{
}
#define PRINT_STRING(...) PrintString(__VA_ARGS__)
int main(int argc, char * const argv[])
{
PRINT_STRING("Hello, World!");
PRINT_STRING("Hello, World!", 18);
PRINT_STRING("Hello, World!", 18, bold);
return 0;
}
#include <stdio.h>
#define PP_NARG(...) \
PP_NARG_(__VA_ARGS__,PP_RSEQ_N())
#define PP_NARG_(...) \
PP_ARG_N(__VA_ARGS__)
#define PP_ARG_N( \
_1, _2, _3, _4, _5, _6, _7, _8, _9,_10, \
_11,_12,_13,_14,_15,_16,_17,_18,_19,_20, \
_21,_22,_23,_24,_25,_26,_27,_28,_29,_30, \
_31,_32,_33,_34,_35,_36,_37,_38,_39,_40, \
_41,_42,_43,_44,_45,_46,_47,_48,_49,_50, \
_51,_52,_53,_54,_55,_56,_57,_58,_59,_60, \
_61,_62,_63,N,...) N
#define PP_RSEQ_N() \
63,62,61,60, \
59,58,57,56,55,54,53,52,51,50, \
49,48,47,46,45,44,43,42,41,40, \
39,38,37,36,35,34,33,32,31,30, \
29,28,27,26,25,24,23,22,21,20, \
19,18,17,16,15,14,13,12,11,10, \
9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0
#define PP_CONCAT(a,b) PP_CONCAT_(a,b)
#define PP_CONCAT_(a,b) a ## b
#define THINK(...) PP_CONCAT(THINK_, PP_NARG(__VA_ARGS__))(__VA_ARGS__)
#define THINK_0() THINK_1("sector zz9 plural z alpha")
#define THINK_1(location) THINK_2(location, 42)
#define THINK_2(location,answer) THINK_3(location, answer, "deep thought")
#define THINK_3(location,answer,computer) \
printf ("The answer is %d. This was calculated by %s, and a computer to figure out what this"
" actually means will be build in %s\n", (answer), (computer), (location))
int
main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
THINK (); /* On compilers other than GCC you have to call with least one non-default argument */
}
DISCLAIMER: Mostly harmless.
As a big fan of horrible macro monsters, I wanted to expand on Jason Deng's answer and make it actually usable. (For better or worse.) The original is not very nice to use because you need to modify the big alphabet soup every time you want to make a new macro and it's even worse if you need different amount of arguments.
So I made a version with these features:
0 argument case works
1 to 16 arguments without any modifications to the messy part
Easy to write more macro functions
Tested in gcc 10, clang 9, Visual Studio 2017
Currently I just made 16 argument maximum, but if you need more (really now? you're just getting silly...) you can edit FUNC_CHOOSER and CHOOSE_FROM_ARG_COUNT, then add some commas to NO_ARG_EXPANDER.
Please see Jason Deng's excellent answer for more details on the implementation, but I'll just put the code here:
#include <stdio.h>
void realCreate(int x, int y)
{
printf("(%d, %d)\n", x, y);
}
// This part you put in some library header:
#define FUNC_CHOOSER(_f0, _f1, _f2, _f3, _f4, _f5, _f6, _f7, _f8, _f9, _f10, _f11, _f12, _f13, _f14, _f15, _f16, ...) _f16
#define FUNC_RECOMPOSER(argsWithParentheses) FUNC_CHOOSER argsWithParentheses
#define CHOOSE_FROM_ARG_COUNT(F, ...) FUNC_RECOMPOSER((__VA_ARGS__, \
F##_16, F##_15, F##_14, F##_13, F##_12, F##_11, F##_10, F##_9, F##_8,\
F##_7, F##_6, F##_5, F##_4, F##_3, F##_2, F##_1, ))
#define NO_ARG_EXPANDER(FUNC) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,FUNC ## _0
#define MACRO_CHOOSER(FUNC, ...) CHOOSE_FROM_ARG_COUNT(FUNC, NO_ARG_EXPANDER __VA_ARGS__ (FUNC))
#define MULTI_MACRO(FUNC, ...) MACRO_CHOOSER(FUNC, __VA_ARGS__)(__VA_ARGS__)
// When you need to make a macro with default arguments, use this:
#define create(...) MULTI_MACRO(CREATE, __VA_ARGS__)
#define CREATE_0() CREATE_1(0)
#define CREATE_1(x) CREATE_2(x, 0)
#define CREATE_2(x, y) \
do { \
/* put whatever code you want in the last macro */ \
realCreate(x, y); \
} while(0)
int main()
{
create();
create(10);
create(20, 20);
//create(30, 30, 30); // Compilation error
return 0;
}
That's not really what the preprocessor is designed for.
That said, if you want to enter into the area of seriously challenging macro programming with a modicum of readability, you should take a look at the Boost preprocessor library. After all, it wouldn't be C++ if there weren't three completely Turing compatible levels of programming (preprocessor, template metaprogramming, and base level C++)!
#define MY_MACRO_3(X,Y,Z) ...
#define MY_MACRO_2(X,Y) MY_MACRO(X,Y,5)
#define MY_MACRO_1(X) MY_MACRO(X,42,5)
You know at the point of call how many args you're going to pass in so there's really no need for overloading.
You can use BOOST_PP_OVERLOAD from a boost library.
Example from official boost doc:
#include <boost/preprocessor/facilities/overload.hpp>
#include <boost/preprocessor/cat.hpp>
#include <boost/preprocessor/facilities/empty.hpp>
#include <boost/preprocessor/arithmetic/add.hpp>
#define MACRO_1(number) MACRO_2(number,10)
#define MACRO_2(number1,number2) BOOST_PP_ADD(number1,number2)
#if !BOOST_PP_VARIADICS_MSVC
#define MACRO_ADD_NUMBERS(...) BOOST_PP_OVERLOAD(MACRO_,__VA_ARGS__)(__VA_ARGS__)
#else
// or for Visual C++
#define MACRO_ADD_NUMBERS(...) \
BOOST_PP_CAT(BOOST_PP_OVERLOAD(MACRO_,__VA_ARGS__)(__VA_ARGS__),BOOST_PP_EMPTY())
#endif
MACRO_ADD_NUMBERS(5) // output is 15
MACRO_ADD_NUMBERS(3,6) // output is 9
Depending on what you need, you could do it with var args with macros. Now, optional parameters or macro overloading, there is no such thing.
Not directly answering the question, but using the same trick as David Sorkovsky answer and giving a clear example of how to build complex macros.
Just compile this with g++ -E test.cpp -o test && cat test:
// #define GET_FIRST_ARG_0_ARGS(default) (default)
// #define GET_FIRST_ARG_1_ARGS(default, a) (a)
// #define GET_FIRST_ARG_2_ARGS(default, a, b) (a)
// #define GET_FIRST_ARG_3_ARGS(default, a, b, c) (a)
// #define GET_FIRST_ARG_4_ARGS(default, a, b, c, d) (a)
#define GET_FIRST_ARG_MACROS(default, a, b, c, d, macro, ...) macro
#define GET_FIRST_ARG(default, ...) GET_FIRST_ARG_MACROS( \
,##__VA_ARGS__, \
GET_FIRST_ARG_4_ARGS(default, __VA_ARGS__), \
GET_FIRST_ARG_3_ARGS(default, __VA_ARGS__), \
GET_FIRST_ARG_2_ARGS(default, __VA_ARGS__), \
GET_FIRST_ARG_1_ARGS(default, __VA_ARGS__), \
GET_FIRST_ARG_0_ARGS(default, ##__VA_ARGS__), \
)
"0,"; GET_FIRST_ARG(0);
"0,1"; GET_FIRST_ARG(0,1);
"0,1,2"; GET_FIRST_ARG(0,1,2);
"0,1,2,3"; GET_FIRST_ARG(0,1,2,3);
"0,1,2,3,4"; GET_FIRST_ARG(0,1,2,3,4);
To see the output:
# 1 "test.cpp"
# 1 "<built-in>"
# 1 "<command-line>"
# 1 "/usr/x86_64-linux-gnu/include/stdc-predef.h" 1 3
# 1 "<command-line>" 2
# 1 "test.cpp"
# 16 "test.cpp"
"0,"; GET_FIRST_ARG_0_ARGS(0);
"0,1"; GET_FIRST_ARG_1_ARGS(0, 1);
"0,1,2"; GET_FIRST_ARG_2_ARGS(0, 1,2);
"0,1,2,3"; GET_FIRST_ARG_3_ARGS(0, 1,2,3);
"0,1,2,3,4"; GET_FIRST_ARG_4_ARGS(0, 1,2,3,4);
Now, a full working program would be:
#include <iostream>
#define GET_FIRST_ARG_0_ARGS(default) (default)
#define GET_FIRST_ARG_1_ARGS(default, a) (a)
#define GET_FIRST_ARG_2_ARGS(default, a, b) (a)
#define GET_FIRST_ARG_3_ARGS(default, a, b, c) (a)
#define GET_FIRST_ARG_4_ARGS(default, a, b, c, d) (a)
#define GET_FIRST_ARG_MACROS(default, a, b, c, d, macro, ...) macro
#define GET_FIRST_ARG(default, ...) GET_FIRST_ARG_MACROS( \
,##__VA_ARGS__, \
GET_FIRST_ARG_4_ARGS(default, __VA_ARGS__), \
GET_FIRST_ARG_3_ARGS(default, __VA_ARGS__), \
GET_FIRST_ARG_2_ARGS(default, __VA_ARGS__), \
GET_FIRST_ARG_1_ARGS(default, __VA_ARGS__), \
GET_FIRST_ARG_0_ARGS(default, ##__VA_ARGS__), \
)
int main(int argc, char const *argv[]) {
"0,"; GET_FIRST_ARG(0);
"0,1"; GET_FIRST_ARG(0,1);
"0,1,2"; GET_FIRST_ARG(0,1,2);
"0,1,2,3"; GET_FIRST_ARG(0,1,2,3);
"0,1,2,3,4"; GET_FIRST_ARG(0,1,2,3,4);
std::cerr << "0, == " << GET_FIRST_ARG(0) << std::endl;
std::cerr << "0,1 == " << GET_FIRST_ARG(0,1) << std::endl;
std::cerr << "0,1,2 == " << GET_FIRST_ARG(0,1,2) << std::endl;
std::cerr << "0,1,2,3 == " << GET_FIRST_ARG(0,1,2,3) << std::endl;
std::cerr << "0,1,2,3,4 == " << GET_FIRST_ARG(0,1,2,3,4) << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Which would output the following by being compiled with g++ test.cpp -o test && ./test:
0, == 0
0,1 == 1
0,1,2 == 1
0,1,2,3 == 1
0,1,2,3,4 == 1
Note: It is important to use () around the macro contents as #define GET_FIRST_ARG_1_ARGS(default, a) (a) to not break in ambiguous expressions when a is just not a integer.
Extra macro for second argument:
#define GET_SECOND_ARG_0_ARGS(default) (default)
#define GET_SECOND_ARG_1_ARGS(default, a) (default)
#define GET_SECOND_ARG_2_ARGS(default, a, b) (b)
#define GET_SECOND_ARG_3_ARGS(default, a, b, c) (b)
#define GET_SECOND_ARG_4_ARGS(default, a, b, c, d) (b)
#define GET_SECOND_ARG_MACROS(default, a, b, c, d, macro, ...) macro
#define GET_SECOND_ARG(default, ...) GET_SECOND_ARG_MACROS( \
,##__VA_ARGS__, \
GET_SECOND_ARG_4_ARGS(default, __VA_ARGS__), \
GET_SECOND_ARG_3_ARGS(default, __VA_ARGS__), \
GET_SECOND_ARG_2_ARGS(default, __VA_ARGS__), \
GET_SECOND_ARG_1_ARGS(default, __VA_ARGS__), \
GET_SECOND_ARG_0_ARGS(default, ##__VA_ARGS__), \
)
None of the above examples (from Derek Ledbetter, David Sorkovsky, and Joe D) to count arguments with macros worked for me using Microsoft VCC 10. The __VA_ARGS__ argument is always considered as a single argument (token-izing it with ## or not), so the argument shifting in which those examples rely doesn't work.
So, short answer, as stated by many others above: no, you can't overload macros or use optional arguments on them.