Using Macros in a program that calculates the midrange of three values - c

I am trying to create a program that uses macros for determining the mid-range for three values. The midrange is defined as:
midrange(a, b, c) = (min(a, b, c) + max(a, b, c)) / 2
For example:
midrange(3, 10, 1) = (min(3, 10, 1) + max(3, 10, 1)) / 2
= (1 + 10) / 2
= 11 / 2
= 5.5
I am still new to programming, and I am not sure if the syntax I am using for macro definitions is correct. My first question is, can I define a macro in the main function? My second question, should I use curly braces, normal parenthesis, or nothing at all for the body of the macro, that is, the replacement list?
This is what my program looks like for calculating the midrange of three integer values:
#include <stdio.h>
#define MIN(A, B) {(A) < (B) ? (A) : (B);}
#define MAX(A, B) {(A) > (B) ? (A) : (B);}
int main(){
//scans the three values
int a, b, c;
scanf("%d%d%d", &a, &b, &c);
int min = MIN(MIN(a, b), c);
int max = MAX(MAX(a, b), c);
//defines new macro for calculating the midrange
//is this allowed/correct formatting and syntax?
#define MIDRANGE((min + max) / 2);
/* initializes variable mrange to equal to the value returned
function-like macro, MIDRANGE */
double mrange = MIDRANGE((min + max) / 2);
printf("The mid-range is: %lf", mrange);
return 0;
}
The reason why I declared the variable mrange as a double is because I want the value of the MIDRANGE macro to be precise, meaning that it will keep the decimal places after the division by 2 in the equation.
Any help is appreciated:)

You can declare a macro anywhere in the code, but unless you have a very specific reason to restrict its usage to a function, it typically appears in the beginning of the .c file or in a .h file.
Macros work by substitution. So if you have something similar to the following:
#define MIN(A, B) {(A) < (B) ? (A) : (B);}
int main(void)
{
int min = MIN(MIN(a, b), c);
}
It will be preprocessed into:
int min = {({(a) < (b) ? (a) : (b);}) < (c) ? ({(a) < (b) ? (a) : (b);}) : (c);};
You can see this by yourself, if you are using GCC, with the command gcc -E source.c. This is obviously not what you wanted, and it will give you a compilation error.
We never use ; at the end of macros, neither put them in blocks. To avoid unexpected operator association with complicated expressions, we guard macro parameters and the whole macro within parentheses.
Your MIN macro should look somewhat like this:
#define MIN(A, B) ((A) < (B) ? (A) : (B))
Finally, there are two things going on with your MIDRANGE macro. First, it should be taking arguments, like you did with MIN. Ideally, it should take three arguments; after all, the whole reason to make it a macro is so that the macro user won't have to calculate everything. Second, if you want the result to be a floating-point number, you should divide by 2.0, not 2.
Here's my first suggestion:
#define MIDRANGE(A, B, C) ((MIN(MIN(A, B), C) + MAX(MAX(A, B), C)) / 2.0)
However, why is this a macro? Make it a function. It's more readable, and easier to mantain. So here's my second suggestion:
double midrange(int a, int b, int c)
{
int min = MIN(MIN(a, b), c);
int max = MAX(MAX(a, b), c);
return (min + max) / 2.0;
}

regarding:
#define MIN(A, B) {(A) < (B) ? (A) : (B);}
#define MAX(A, B) {(A) > (B) ? (A) : (B);}
Lets remember that a macro is nothing more than a direct text replacement.
So looking at:
int min = MIN(MIN(a, b), c);
results in:
int min = { {(a) < (b) ? (a) : (b);} < (c);};
as is obvious from the above,
min is outside the braces '{' and '}' so will be difficult to assign to
the resulting statement contains two spurious ';' characters, which is what the compiler is complaining about
Suggest:
#define MIN( A, B ) ((A) < (B)) ? (A) : (B)
Similar considerations exist for the MAX macro

Related

what is the difference of these two macro max?

writing leetcode
I use the macro like this:
#define max(a,b) ((a) > (b))?(a):(b)
it is wrong,when i change the macro like this,it's right
#define max(a,b) (((a) > (b))?(a):(b))
can't figure out why does this different.Here is the code,you can check it out.
#define UNBALANCED 99
#define max(a,b) (((a) > (b))?(a):(b))
int getHeight(struct TreeNode * root)
{
if(NULL == root)
return -1;
int l = getHeight(root->left);
int r = getHeight(root->right);
if(UNBALANCED == l || UNBALANCED == r || abs(l-r) > 1)
return UNBALANCED;
return 1 + max(l,r);
}
bool isBalanced(struct TreeNode* root)
{
if(NULL == root)
return true;
return getHeight(root) != UNBALANCED;
}
that is different with The need for parentheses in macros in C
The former fails to isolate the macro replacement from neighboring operands. For example:
1 + max(a, b)
expands to:
1 + ((a) > (b))?(a):(b)
and that groups as:
(1 + ((a) > (b))) ? (a) : (b)
Then (1 + ((a) > (b))) is always nonzero, so (a) is always chosen.
To prevent this, a macro that expands to an expression should use parenthesis around its entire expression to prevent its parts from grouping with neighboring operands.
The second version of your macro has extra parentheses which make the expression ((a) > (b))?(a):(b) evaluated as a whole. More code would be needed to explain exactly why the first one is wrong in your case. Also, see this.
Arguably both of them are incorrect; what if you wanted to use your macro like:
MAX(i++, j++)
The resulting ternary-operator expression from your examples cause whichever expression is smaller to be evaluated twice. Yowch! Since you (and most future readers) likely use GCC or clang, here's a better example with some compiler extensions (__typeof__ and statement expressions) that both of them support.
#define MAX(a, b) ({ __typeof__ (a) a__ = (a); \
__typeof__ (b) b__ = (b); \
(a__ > b__) ? a__ : b__; })

What are expressions with side effects and why should they be not passed to a macro?

I came across a statement in the text C How to Program:
"Expressions with side effects (i.e., variable values are modified) should not be passed to a macro because macro arguments may be evaluated more than once.".
My question is what are expressions with side effects and why should they be not passed to a macro?
The classic example is a macro to calculate the maximum of two value:
#define MAX(a, b) ((a) > (b) ? (a) : (b))
Now lets "call" the macro like this:
int x = 5;
int y = 7;
int z = MAX(x++, y++);
Now if MAX was a normal function, we would expect that x and y would be incremented once, right? However because it's a macro the "call" is replaced like this:
int z = ((x++) > (y++) ? (x++) : (y++));
As you see, the variable y will be incremented twice, once in the condition and once as the end-result of the ternary operator.
This is the result of an expression with side-effects (the post-increment expression) and a macro expansion.
On a related note, there are also other dangers with macros. For example lets take this simple macro:
#define MUL_BY_TWO(x) (x * 2)
Looks simple right? But now what if we use it like this:
int result = MUL_BY_TWO(a + b);
That will expand like
int result = (a + b * 2);
And as you hopefully knows multiplication have higher precedence than addition, so the expression a + b * 2 is equivalent to a + (b * 2), probably not what was intended by the macro writer. That is why arguments to macros should be put inside their own parentheses:
#define MUL_BY_TWO(x) ((x) * 2)
Then the expansion will be
int result = ((a + b) * 2);
which is probably correct.
To put it simply a side effect is a write to an object or a read of a volatile object.
So an example of a side effect:
i++;
Here is a use of a side effect in a macro:
#define MAX(a, b) ((a) > (b)) ? (a) : (b))
int a = 42;
int b = 1;
int c;
c = MAX(a, b++);
The danger is contrary to a function where the arguments are passed by value you are potentially modifying b object one or two times (depending on the macro arguments, here one time) in the macro because of the way macros work (by replacing the b++ tokens in the macro definition).
Side Effects can be defined as:
Evaluation of an expression produces something and if in addition there is a change in the state of the execution environment it is said that the expression (its evaluation) has some side effect(s).
For example:
int x = y++; //where y is also an int
In addition to the initialization operation the value of y gets changed due to the side effect of ++ operator.
Now consider a macro for squaring of an integers :
#define Sq(a) a*a
main()
{
int a=6;
int res=Sq(a);
printf("%d\n",res);
res=Sq(++a);
printf("%d",res);
}
You would expect the output to be
36
49
However the output is
36
64
because macro results in textual replacement and
res becomes (++a)*(++a)
i.e, 8*8=64
Therefore we should not pass arguments with side effects to macros.
(http://ideone.com/mMPQLP)

How to control C Macro Precedence

#define VAL1CHK 20
#define NUM 1
#define JOIN(A,B,C) A##B##C
int x = JOIN(VAL,NUM,CHK);
With above code my expectation was
int x = 20;
But i get compilation error as macro expands to
int x = VALNUMCHK; // Which is undefined
How to make it so that NUM is replaced first and the JOIN is used?
You can redirect the JOIN operation to another macro, which then does the actual pasting, in order to enforce expansion of its arguments:
#define VAL1CHK 20
#define NUM 1
#define JOIN1(A, B, C) A##B##C
#define JOIN(A, B, C) JOIN1(A, B, C)
int x = JOIN(VAL,NUM,CHK);
This technique is often used with the pasting and stringification operators in macros.

The best way to define a "between" macro in C

What's the best way to define a between macro, which is type generic (char,int,long)
which will return true if a number is between to other numbers inputted.
I'm tried to google it, but I didn't find anything.
Edit: The order of the two boundaries given shouldn't matter. so it can be more general.
If you do something like:
#define BETWEEN(a, b, c) (((a) >= (b)) && ((a) <= (c)))
you are going to have problem with the double evaluation of a. Think what would happens if you do that with a functions that has side effects...
you should instead do something like:
#define BETWEEN(a, b, c) ({ __typeof__ (a) __a = (a); ((__a) >= (b) && ((__a) <= (c)) })
(edited because the result should not depend of the order of b and c):
#define BETWEEN(a, b, c) \
({ __typeof__ (a) __a = (a);\
__typeof__ (b) __b = (b);\
__typeof__ (c) __c = (c);\
(__a >= __b && __a <= __c)||\
(__a >= __c && __a <= __b)})
Firstly, don't use macros for things like this - use functions (possibly inline).
Secondly, if you must use macros, then what's wrong with e.g.
#define BETWEEN(x, x_min, x_max) ((x) > (x_min) && (x) < (x_max))
?
As per your subsequent edit, if you don't know the ordering of x_min and x_max then you could do this:
#define BETWEEN2(x, x0, x1) (BETWEEN((x), (x0), (x1)) || \
BETWEEN((x), (x1), (x0)))
The usual caveats about macros and side-effects etc apply.
Edit: removed space between macro & arguments for compilation
If all types are the same, how about:
/* Check if 'a' is between 'b' and 'c') */
#define BETWEEN(a, b, c) (((a) >= (b)) && ((a) <= (c)))
Note that if the types of a, b and c above are different, the implicit type conversions of C might make it wrong. Especially if you mix signed and unsigned numbers.
+1: A not-so-trivial question, since it involves the problem of the evaluation of macro parameters. The naive solution would be
#define BETWEEN(x,l1,l2) (((x) >= (l1)) && ((x) <= (l2)))
but "x" is evaluated twice, so there may be problems if the expression has side effects. Let's try something smarter:
#define BETWEEN(x,l1,l2) (((unsigned long)((x)-(l1))) <= (l2))
Very very tricky and not so clean, but...
#define BETWEEN_MIN(a, b) ((a)<(b) ? (a) : (b))
#define BETWEEN_MAX(a, b) ((a)>(b) ? (a) : (b))
#define BETWEEN_REAL(val, lo, hi) (((lo) <= (val)) && ((val) <= (hi)))
#define BETWEEN(val, hi, lo) \
BETWEEN_REAL((val), BETWEEN_MIN((hi), (lo)), BETWEEN_MAX((hi), (lo)))
See code running: http://ideone.com/Hb1vP
If I understand correctly, you will need 3 numbers, the upper limit, the lower limit and the number you're checking, so I would do it like this:
#define BETWEEN(up, low, n) ((n) <= (up) && (n) >= (low))
This assumes the between is inclusive of the upper and lower limits, otherwise:
#define BETWEEN(up, low, n) ((n) < (up) && (n) > (low))

C Macro for minimum of two numbers

I want to make a simple macro with #define for returning the smaller of two numbers.
How can i do this in C ? Suggest some ideas, and see if you can make it more obfuscated too.
Typically:
#define min(a, b) (((a) < (b)) ? (a) : (b))
Be warned this evaluates the minimum twice, which was the reason for disaster in a recent question.
But why would you want to obfuscate it?
This one stores the result in a variable, and only evaluates each argument once. It's basically a poor-mans inline function + declaration:
#define min(t, x, a, b) \
t x; \
{ \
t _this_is_a_unique_name_dont_use_it_plz_0_ = a; \
t _this_is_a_unique_name_dont_use_it_plz_1_ = b; \
x = _this_is_a_unique_name_dont_use_it_plz_0_ < \
_this_is_a_unique_name_dont_use_it_plz_1_ ? \
_this_is_a_unique_name_dont_use_it_plz_0_ : \
_this_is_a_unique_name_dont_use_it_plz_1_ ; \
}
Use it like:
min(int, x, 3, 4)
/* x is an int, equal to 3
Just like doing:
int x = min(3, 4);
Without double evaluation.
*/
And, just for the hell of it, a GNU C example:
#define MAX(a,b) ({ \
typeof(a) _a_temp_; \
typeof(b) _b_temp_; \
_a_temp_ = (a); \
_b_temp_ = (b); \
_a_temp_ = _a_temp_ < _b_temp_ ? _b_temp_ : _a_temp_; \
})
It's not obfuscated, but I think this works for any type, in any context, on (almost, see comments) any arguments, etc; please correct if you can think of any counterexamples.
Sure, you can use a #define for this, but why would you want to? The problem with using #define, even with parentheses, is that you get unexpected results with code like this (okay, you wouldn't actually do this, but it illustrates the problem).
int result = min(a++, b++);
If you're using C++ not C, surely better to use an inline function, which (i) avoids evaluating the parameters more than once, and (ii) is type safe (you can even provide versions taking other types of value, like unsigned, double or string).
inline int min(int a, int b) { return (a < b) ? a : b; }
I think this method is rather cute:
#define min(a, b) (((a) + (b) - fabs((a) - (b))) * 0.5)
I want to make a simple macro with #define for returning the smaller of two numbers.
I wanted to add a solution when the numbers are floating point.
Consider when the numbers are floating point numbers and one of the numbers is not-a-number. Then the result of a < b is always false regardless of the value of the other number.
// the result is `b` when either a or b is NaN
#define min(a, b) (((a) < (b)) ? (a) : (b))
It can be desirable that the result is as below where "NaN arguments are treated as missing data". C11 Footnote #242
a NaN | b NaN | a < b | min
-------+---------+---------+---------------
No | No | No | b
No | No | Yes | a
No | Yes | . | a
Yes | No | . | b
Yes | Yes | . | either a or b
To do so with a macro in C would simple wrap the fmin() function which supprts the above table. Of course code should normally used the fmin() function directly.
#include <math.h>
#define my_fmin(a, b) (fmin((a), (b))
Note that fmin(0.0, -0.0) may return 0.0 or -0.0. They both have equal value.
If I were just trying to lightly obfuscate this I would probably go with something like:
#define min(a,b) ((a) + ((b) < (a) ? (b) - (a) : 0))
I think Doynax's solution is pretty cute, too. Usual reservations for both about macro arguments being evaluated more than once.
For slightly obfuscated, try this:
#define MIN(a,b) ((((a)-(b))&0x80000000) >> 31)? (a) : (b)
Basically, it subtracts them, and looks at the sign-bit as a 1-or-0.
If the subtraction results in a negative number, the first parameter is smaller.

Resources