Can on do this:
#define VARIABLE_LENGTH_CHAR_ARRAY(name, size) \
int temp_array_size_macro_index = size; \
char "#name"[temp_array_size_macro_index];
and in the main use it like:
main(){
VARIABLE_LENGTH_CHAR_ARRAY(local_char_array, 16);
}
would this go against the coding styles or would it be plagued with macro issues?
I know you need to be careful with the variable name!
if I am right you want something like that :
#define VARIABLE_LENGTH_CHAR_ARRAY(name, size) \
const int size_of_##name = size; \
char name[size_of_##name]
int main()
{
VARIABLE_LENGTH_CHAR_ARRAY(local_char_array, 16);
}
The name of the (now const) variable for the size now depends on the name of the array itself, that minimize the probability to have homonyms
The expansion of that code produced by gcc -E gives :
int main()
{
const int size_of_local_char_array = 16; char local_char_array[size_of_local_char_array];
}
But to do that it is strange :
as __J__ I think this not helps to make the program readable
else where in your source size_of_local_char_array can be used but if you/someone search for its definition it will not be found
the macro produces two statements, and of course in that case it is not possible to group them in a block {}, this is dangerous because this is not intuitive. As you can see in your code you added a useless ';' after the use of the macro while a final ';' is already present in the macro definition
Related
This questions is about my homework.
This topic is need to use like:
#define GENERIC_MAX(type)\
type type##_max(type x, type y)\
{\
return x > y ? x : y;\
}
The content of the question is to make this code run normally:
#include <stdio.h>
GenerateShowValueFunc(double)
GenerateShowValueFunc(int)
int main()
{
double i = 5.2;
int j = 3;
showValue_double(i);
showValue_int(j);
}
The result of the operation is like this:
i=5.2000
j=3
And this code is my current progress, but there are have problems:
#include <stdio.h>
#define printname(n) printf(#n);
#define GenerateShowValueFunc(type)\
type showValue_##type(type x)\
{\
printname(x);\
printf("=%d\n", x);\
return 0;\
}
GenerateShowValueFunc(double)
GenerateShowValueFunc(int)
int main()
{
double i = 5.2;
int j = 3;
showValue_double(i);
showValue_int(j);
}
I don’t know how to make the output change with the type, and I don’t know how to display the name of the variable. OAO
This original task description:
Please refer to ShowValue.c below:
#include <stdio.h>
GenerateShowValueFunc(double)
GenerateShowValueFunc(int)
int main()
{
double i = 5.2;
int j = 3;
showValue_double(i);
showValue_int(j);
}
Through [GenerateShowValueFunc(double)] and [GenerateShowValueFunc(int)] these two lines macro call, can help us to generated as [showValue_double( double )] and [showValue_int( int )] function, And in main() function called. The execution result of this program is as follows:
i=5.2000
j=3
Please insert the code that defines GenerateShowValueFunc macro into the appropriate place in the ShowValue.c program, so that this program can compile and run smoothly.
A quick & dirty solution would be:
type showValue_##type(type x)\
{\
const char* double_fmt = "=%f\n";\
const char* int_fmt = "=%d\n";\
printname(x);\
printf(type##_fmt, x);\
return 0;\
}
The compiler will optimize out the variable that isn't used, so it won't affect performance. But it might yield warnings "variable not used". You can add null statements like (void)double_fmt; to silence it.
Anyway, this is all very brittle and bug-prone, it was never recommended practice to write macros like these. And it is not how you do generic programming in modern C. You can teach your teacher how, by showing them the following example:
#include <stdio.h>
void double_show (double d)
{
printf("%f\n", d);
}
void int_show (int i)
{
printf("%d\n", i);
}
#define show(x) _Generic((x),\
double: double_show, \
int: int_show) (x) // the x here is the parameter passed to the function
int main()
{
double i = 5.2;
int j = 3;
show(i);
show(j);
}
This uses the modern C11/C17 standard _Generic keyword, which can check for types at compile-time. The macro picks the appropriate function to call and it is type safe. The caller doesn't need to worry which "show" function to call nor that they pass the correct type.
Without changing the shown C-code (i.e. only doing macros), which I consider a requirement, the following code has the required output:
#include <stdio.h>
#define showValue_double(input) \
showValueFunc_double(#input"=%.4f\n" , input)
#define showValue_int(input) \
showValueFunc_int(#input"=%d\n" , input)
#define GenerateShowValueFunc(type) \
void showValueFunc_##type(const char format[], type input)\
{\
printf(format, input); \
}
/* ... macro magic above; */
/* unchangeable code below ... */
GenerateShowValueFunc(double)
GenerateShowValueFunc(int)
int main()
{
double i = 5.2;
int j = 3;
showValue_double(i);
showValue_int(j);
}
Output:
i=5.2000
j=3
Note that I created something of a lookup-table for type-specific format specifiers. I.e. for each type to be supported you need to add a macro #define showValue_ .... This is also needed to get the name of the variable into the output.
This uses the fact that two "strings" are concatenated by C compilers, i.e. "A""B" is the same as "AB". Where "A" is the result of #input.
The rest, i.e. the required function definition is very similar to the teacher-provided example, using the ## operator.
Note, this is if the variable name has to correctly be mentioned in the output.
With out the i = things would be easier and would more elegantly use the generated functions WITHOUT having the called showValue_double(i); be explicit macros. I.e. the functions generated are 1:1 what is called from main(). I think that might be what is really asked. Let me know if you want that version.
I have a flat C file including ctype.h where i cant figure out how a macro works. There is this macro
#define da_dim(name, type) type *name = NULL; \
int _qy_ ## name ## _p = 0; \
int _qy_ ## name ## _max = 0
I thought it should define the type of a given value. So for example i could write
int a;
da_dim(a,"char");
to convert it to a char but it doesnt do that. I can imagine what '## name ##' is/does (like a placeholder) but i dont understand what 'qy' is and where it came from. So what is this macro for, how tu use it and (maybe) how does it work?
A macro, in C is just a simple token replacement mechanism.
Your example:
int a;
da_dim(a,"char");
Will expand to:
int a;
"char" *a = NULL;
int _qy_a_p = 0;
int _qy_a_max = 0;
So, if will expand to errors because you will have two a identifiers and "char" is not expected where you are placing it.
If you are using gcc, you can "see" macro expansions by doing:
$ gcc -E your_program.c
I know you can return a character string from a normal function in C as in this code
#include <stdio.h>
char* returnstring(char *pointer) {
pointer="dog";
return pointer;
}
int main(void)
{
char *dog = NULL;
printf("%s\n", returnstring(dog));
}
However, I can't find a way to be able to return character strings in #define functions, as in this code
#include <stdio.h>
#define returnstring(pointer) { \
pointer="dog"; \
return pointer; \
}
int main(void)
{
char *dog = NULL;
printf("%s\n", returnstring(dog));
}
I know that there are workarounds(like using the first program). I just want to know if it is possible
Thinking about a "#define function" is, IMO, the wrong way to approach this.
#define is a blunt instrument which amounts to a text find/replace. It knows little to nothing about C++ as a language, and the replace is done before any of your real code is even looked at.
What you have written isn't a function in its own right, it is a piece of text that looks like one, and it put in where you have written the alias.
If you want to #define what you just did, that's fine (I didn't check your example specifically, but in general, using #define for a function call and substituting the arguments is possible), but think twice before doing so unless you have an amazing reason. And then think again until you decide not to do it.
You can't "return" from a macro. Your best (ugh... arguably the "best", but anyway) bet is to formulate your macro in such a way that it evaluates to the expression you want to be the result. For example:
#define returnstring(ptr) ((ptr) = "hello world")
const char *p;
printf("%s\n", returnstring(p));
If you have multiple expression statements, you can separate them using the horrible comma operator:
#define even_more_dangerous(ptr) (foo(), bar(), (ptr) = "hello world")
If you are using GCC or a compatible compiler, you can also take advantage of a GNU extension called "statement expressions" so as to embed whole (non-expression) statements into your macro:
#define this_should_be_a_function(ptr) ({ \
if (foo) { \
bar(); \
} else { \
for (int i = 0; i < baz(); i++) { \
quirk(); \
} \
} \
ptr[0]; // last statement must be an expression statement \
})
But if you get to this point, you could really just write a proper function as well.
You don't return anything from a #defined macro. Roughly speaking, the C preprocessor replaces the macro call with the text of the macro body, with arguments textually substituted into their positions. If you want a macro to assign a pointer to "dog" and evaluate to the pointer, you can do this:
#define dogpointer(p) ((p)="dog")
The thing is returnstring as a macro does not do what it says; it also assigns the value to the parameter. The function does as it says, even if it (somewhat oddly) uses its parameter as a temporary variable.
The function is equivalent to:
char* returnstring(char *ignored) {
return "dog";
}
The function macro is much the same as:
#define returnstring(pointer) pointer = "dog"
Which begs the question, why not call it assign_string?
Or why not just have:
#define dogString "dog"
And write:
int main(void)
{
char *dog = NULL;
printf("%s\n", dog = dogString);
}
The function for assignString is:
char* assignstring(char **target{
*target= "dog";
return *target;
}
You can then have a macro:
assign_string_macro(pointer) assignstring(&pointer)
Ultimately if you want to "return character strings in #define functions", then all you need is:
#define returnstring(ignored) "dog"
I just came to C from C# and was looking for a way to define generic functions like those in C#. I came across this post but when I tried to compile it I get a bunch of errors ("`n' undeclared here (not in a function)", " syntax error before "array" ", etc.)
Here's my code:
#include<conio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#define MAKE_PRINTEACH(TYPE)\
void printeach_##TYPE (TYPE[n] array, int n, void(*f)(TYPE)){\
int i;\
for(i = 0; i < n; i++) {\
f(array[i]);\
}\
}
MAKE_PRINTEACH(int)
MAKE_PRINTEACH(float)
void printInt(int x)
{
printf("got %d\n",x);
}
void printFloat(float x)
{
printf("got %f\n",x);
}
int main()
{
int[5] ia = {34,61,3,6,76};
float[6] fa = {2.4,0.5,55.2,22.0,6.76,3.14159265};
printeach_int(ia, 5, printInt);
printeach_float(fa,6,printFloat);
getch();
}
What am I doing wrong here?
I am using DevC++ if that makes a difference.
A correct version would look like this
#define MAKE_PRINTEACH(TYPE) \
void printeach_##TYPE (size_t n, TYPE array[n], void(*f)(TYPE)){ \
for(size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) { \
f(array[i]); \
} \
}
to summarize what went wrong with your version:
n must be declared before it is used
the array bounds come after the identifier
the semantically correct type for array sizes and things like that is size_t
C since C99 also has local variables for for loops.
You might try this variation:
#define MAKE_PRINTEACH(TYPE)\
void printeach_##TYPE (TYPE * array, int n, void(*f)(TYPE)){\
int i;\
for(i = 0; i < n; i++) {\
f(array[i]);\
}\
}
The TYPE[n] array implies the compiler supports VLA (Variable Length Array) and I do not know whether your compiler does.
For gcc adding the command line option -std=c99 would make the original code compile.
Update:
Corrections applied as by Jens's comment.
The solution I propose is to simply pass a pointer to a variable of the type which the array (as proposed in the OP) would have contained. Doing so, is the way arrays are passed to a function. They are passed by reference.
Also Jens mentions several other warnings/errors. As there are:
1 conio.h is not a standard C include, stdio.h whould be appropriate here
2 Arrays are declared by adding the array's size to the variable name, not to the type. It has to be: int ia[5]not int[5] ia
3 main() returns int, the OP does not return anything.
4 The prototype for getch() is missing. One might like to include curses.h
I have a function that I need to macro'ize. The function contains temp variables and I can't remember if there are any rules about use of temporary variables in macro substitutions.
long fooAlloc(struct foo *f, long size)
{
long i1, i2;
double *data[7];
/* do something */
return 42;
}
MACRO Form:
#define ALLOC_FOO(f, size) \
{\
long i1, i2;\
double *data[7];\
\
/* do something */ \
}
Is this ok? (i.e. no nasty side effect - other than the usual ones : not "type safe" etc). BTW, I know "macros are evil" - I simply have to use it in this case - not much choice.
There are only two conditions under which it works in any "reasonable" way.
The macro doesn't have a return statement. You can use the do while trick.
#define macro(x) do { int y = x; func(&y); } while (0)
You only target GCC.
#define min(x,y) ({ int _x = (x), _y = (y); _x < _y ? _x : _y; })
It would help if you explain why you have to use a macro (does your office have "macro mondays" or something?). Otherwise we can't really help.
C macros are only (relatively simple) textual substitutions.
So the question you are maybe asking is: can I create blocks (also called compound statements) in a function like in the example below?
void foo(void)
{
int a = 42;
{
int b = 42;
{
int c = 42;
}
}
}
and the answer is yes.
Now as #DietrichEpp mentioned it in his answer, if the macro is a compound statement like in your example, it is a good practice to enclose the macro statements with do { ... } while (0) rather than just { ... }. The link below explains what situation the do { ... } while (0) in a macro tries to prevent:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Swallowing-the-Semicolon.html
Also when you write a function-like macro always ask yourself if you have a real advantage of doing so because most often writing a function instead is better.
First, I strongly recommend inline functions. There are very few things macros can do and they can't, and they're much more likely to do what you expect.
One pitfall of macros, which I didn't see in other answers, is shadowing of variable names.
Suppose you defined:
#define A(x) { int temp = x*2; printf("%d\n", temp); }
And someone used it this way:
int temp = 3;
A(temp);
After preprocessing, the code is:
int temp = 3;
{ int temp = temp*2; printf("%d\n", temp); }
This doesn't work, because the internal temp shadows the external.
The common solution is to call the variable __temp, assuming nobody will define a variable using this name (which is a strange assumption, given that you just did it).
This is mostly OK, except that macros are usually enclosed with do { ... } while(0) (take a look at this question for explanations):
#define ALLOC_FOO(f, size) \
do { \
long i1, i2;\
double *data[7];\
/* do something */ \
} while(0)
Also, as far as your original fooAlloc function returns long you have to change your macro to store the result somehow else. Or, if you use GCC, you can try compound statement extension:
#define ALLOC_FOO(f, size) \
({ \
long i1, i2;\
double *data[7];\
/* do something */ \
result; \
})
Finally you should care of possible side effects of expanding macro argument. The usual pattern is defining a temporary variable for each argument inside a block and using them instead:
#define ALLOC_FOO(f, size) \
({ \
typeof(f) _f = (f);\
typeof(size) _size = (size);\
long i1, i2;\
double *data[7];\
/* do something */ \
result; \
})
Eldar's answer shows you most of the pitfalls of macro programming and some useful (but non standard) gcc extension.
If you want to stick to the standard, a combination of macros (for genericity) and inline functions (for the local variables) can be useful.
inline
long fooAlloc(void *f, size_t size)
{
size_t i1, i2;
double *data[7];
/* do something */
return 42;
}
#define ALLOC_FOO(T) fooAlloc(malloc(sizeof(T)), sizeof(T))
In such a case using sizeof only evaluates the expression for the type at compile time and not for its value, so this wouldn't evaluate F twice.
BTW, "sizes" should usually be typed with size_t and not with long or similar.
Edit: As to Jonathan's question about inline functions, I've written up something about the inline model of C99, here.
Yes it should work as you use a block structure and the temp variables are declared in the inner scope of this block.
Note the last \ after the } is redundant.
A not perfect solution: (does not work with recursive macros, for example multiple loops inside each other)
#define JOIN_(X,Y) X##Y
#define JOIN(X,Y) JOIN_(X,Y)
#define TMP JOIN(tmp,__LINE__)
#define switch(x,y) int TMP = x; x=y;y=TMP
int main(){
int x = 5,y=6;
switch(x,y);
switch(x,y);
}
will become after running the preprocessor:
int main(){
int x=5,y=6;
int tmp9 = x; x=y; y=tmp9;
int tmp10 = x; x=y; y=tmp10;
}
They can. They often shouldn't.
Why does this function need to be a macro? Could you inline it instead?
If you're using c++ use inline, or use -o3 with gcc it will inline all functions for you.
I still don't understand why you need to macroize this function.