I have worked on several projects in college on C, but never used it in professional capacity.
Recently I started reading through cpython's source code and the following syntax confused me: github
What does PyAPI_FUNC(int) PyToken_OneChar(int); the part before the function name mean? Is it a wrapper function that dynamically constructs the return type?
I am not even sure what to Google search for, in this case!
PyAPI_FUNC() is a macro defined in pyport.h. The particular definition depends on the platform you're building on, but here's an example:
#define PyAPI_FUNC(RTYPE) __declspec(dllimport) RTYPE
So the line in your question, PyAPI_FUNC(int) PyToken_OneChar(int); expands to:
__declspec(dllimport) int PyToken_OneChar(int);
Basically, it just declares the name PyToken_OneChar as a function that takes an int as its parameter and returns an int, but it does it in a way that lets the compiler embed storage information with those types. See What is __declspec and when do I need to use it? for more information about the __declspec directive if you're interested. Another of the definitions for PyAPI_FUNC is:
#define PyAPI_FUNC(RTYPE) RTYPE
which skips all that and just expands the line above to:
int PyToken_OneChar(int);
So the main thing to take away from this is that source code that's meant to compile on multiple platforms often uses macros that make it easier to write code once and use it on each of those platforms. In this case, it lets the programmers write declarations for PyToken_OneChar() and many other functions once instead of having to write (and maintain!) different versions for each platform. This is fairly advanced stuff -- not something you should worry about if you're getting started.
It's a C Macro they wrote which allows them to do different things on different OS platforms, for instance, on windows, this will export the function as part of the public interface for a DLL.
Related
I'm trying to use rlutil.h but everytime these function are used in more than one header I have compiler error about multiple definition of 20-30 variables. rlutil is a simple header to color terminal in linux and windows in C and C++.
The variables are something like that
const RLUTIL_STRING_T ANSI_CONSOLE_TITLE_POST = "\007";
and the typedef something like that
typedef const char* RLUTIL_STRING_T;
I tried to add my own C guard but it didn't worked.
I tried to layering the .h with my own .h/.c to make new function using the rlutil.h function but the problem is still here.
I tried to make the variables extern but it's worst
I'm building it with gcc on ubuntu.
I'm gonna try this at home with MVSC2017 but I think the behavior will be the same.
Any idea ?
I can provide more information.
Sorry for my english i'm not a native speaker
Thank's a lot
The problem is that the header is only set up so that it works with C++, where the const values defined in the header rlutil.h are private to each translation unit (TU) — think source file plus headers — that includes the header. By contrast, in C, they are normal global variables defined in each TU that includes rlutil.h, leading to the multiple definitions problem.
There isn't a trivial fix — unless switching from C to C++ is deemed trivial. The header attempts to be language-neutral between C and C++, but it fails on this count. Once again, proof that C and C++ are different languages.
In C, you would need to have code like:
extern const RLUTIL_STRING_T ANSI_CONSOLE_TITLE_POST;
in the header and then one source file would define the values:
const RLUTIL_STRING_T ANSI_CONSOLE_TITLE_POST = "\007"; // James Bond!
Alternatively, you could consider using static in the header:
static const RLUTIL_STRING_T ANSI_CONSOLE_TITLE_POST = "\007";
Each C file that includes this header would have its own collection of defined variables. In C, you'd be subject to compiler warnings about unused variables, which is not desirable. In C++, you might get warnings about using static instead of an anonymous namespace. It isn't clear that this is a good solution, therefore.
If you're brave, you could read the tail end of my answer to How do I use extern to share variables between files, but the header is probably not in your control and you really need to report the trouble to the maintainers of the code. (If you are the maintainer, then think about whether a scheme such as that outlined in the answer to the other question will help.)
I recently came across the C function with return type as void and package keyword added in front of it.
Could anyone please tell me what the meaning of package in the below mentioned C function prototype represents?
package void function (void)
The macro definition for the package:
/* function and variable scope modifiers */
#define package //accessible within package only,used for functions only
package is not a keyword in any C standard.
Perhaps it's being #defined by some header file you're not showing us.
Edit: package is being defined to nothing, so it has exactly zero effect in your program. Maybe if you told us what this header file was, and what this other code is you're trying to use, we might understand why it exists.
Sometimes the information you want to communicate to the reader in a declaration differs from the information that C lets you communicate.
For example, C's use of the static keyword can be confusing. On an object declaration at block scope, it affects the storage duration of the object; on an object declaration at file scope (outside any function body), it affects the linkage.
Programmers will sometimes try to extend the language, by defining macros that more clearly express the intent.
For example, I might write:
#define PUBLIC extern
#define PRIVATE static
PUBLIC void func1(void);
PRIVATE void func2(void);
As far as the compiler is concerned, this is exactly equivalent to:
extern void func1(void);
static void func2(void);
but it might be clearer to a human reader who happens to know, or can guess, what the PUBLIC and PRIVATE macros are supposed to mean.
In your case, you have:
#define package //accessible within package only,used for functions only
so package is replaced by nothing. (IMHO it would have been better to define PACKAGE, so it's obvious to a reader that this is a macro), followed by:
package void function (void);
The word package is ignored by the compiler. It's intended to convey to the human reader that the function function is intended to be "accessible within package only" -- whatever that means.
The C language does not have the concept of a "package". The largest unit of organization for a C program is the translation unit, consisting of a source file along with anything it #includes, directly or indirectly.
The author of the code presumably had something in mind as the definition of a "package". Perhaps it's some well-defined collection of translation units -- in which case there is no C syntax to express the restriction that the author intends.
One problem with this kind of thing is that although package looks like it could be a keyword, it's not enforced by the compiler. Perhaps there's another tool that checks the source files for "correct" use of package -- or perhaps it's entirely up to the maintainers of the code to use it correctly.
Without knowing what a "package" is, it's impossible to be sure what the package pseudo-keyword is supposed to mean. I hope that the term is precisely documented somewhere.
It can be a way for the author (programmer) to give the reader (maintenance programmer) some extra information about intentions and structure. From the comment "accessible within package only,used for functions only" it could also be defined as:
#define package static
Now all functions with "package" will be declared as static and have scope only within the "package" (source module/file). I see many programmers do things like this. Of course there is no standard for it so every time I have to find it out again "what's he doing?"
I am trying to use a function-like macro to generate an object-like macro name (generically, a symbol). The following will not work because __func__ (C99 6.4.2.2-1) puts quotes around the function name.
#define MAKE_AN_IDENTIFIER(x) __func__##__##x
The desired result of calling MAKE_AN_IDENTIFIER(NULL_POINTER_PASSED) would be MyFunctionName__NULL_POINTER_PASSED. There may be other reasons this would not work (such as __func__ being taken literally and not interpreted, but I could fix that) but my question is what will provide a predefined macro like __func__ except without the quotes? I believe this is not possible within the C99 standard so valid answers could be references to other preprocessors.
Presently I have simply created my own object-like macro and redefined it manually before each function to be the function name. Obviously this is a poor and probably unacceptable practice. I am aware that I could take an existing cpp program or library and modify it to provide this functionality. I am hoping there is either a commonly used cpp replacement which provides this or a preprocessor library (prefer Python) which is designed for extensibility so as to allow me to 'configure' it to create the macro I need.
I wrote the above to try to provide a concise and well defined question but it is certainly the Y referred to by #Ruud. The X is...
I am trying to manage unique values for reporting errors in an embedded system. The values will be passed as a parameter to a(some) particular function(s). I have already written a Python program using pycparser to parse my code and identify all symbols being passed to the function(s) of interest. It generates a .h file of #defines maintaining the values of previously existing entries, commenting out removed entries (to avoid reusing the value and also allow for reintroduction with the same value), assigning new unique numbers for new identifiers, reporting malformed identifiers, and also reporting multiple use of any given identifier. This means that I can simply write:
void MyFunc(int * p)
{
if (p == NULL)
{
myErrorFunc(MYFUNC_NULL_POINTER_PASSED);
return;
}
// do something actually interesting here
}
and the Python program will create the #define MYFUNC_NULL_POINTER_PASSED 7 (or whatever next available number) for me with all the listed considerations. I have also written a set of macros that further simplify the above to:
#define FUNC MYFUNC
void MyFunc(int * p)
{
RETURN_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(p);
// do something actually interesting here
}
assuming I provide the #define FUNC. I want to use the function name since that will be constant throughout many changes (as opposed to LINE) and will be much easier for someone to transfer the value from the old generated #define to the new generated #define when the function itself is renamed. Honestly, I think the only reason I am trying to 'solve' this 'issue' is because I have to work in C rather than C++. At work we are writing fairly object oriented C and so there is a lot of NULL pointer checking and IsInitialized checking. I have two line functions that turn into 30 because of all these basic checks (these macros reduce those lines by a factor of five). While I do enjoy the challenge of crazy macro development, I much prefer to avoid them. That said, I dislike repeating myself and hiding the functional code in a pile of error checking even more than I dislike crazy macros.
If you prefer to take a stab at this issue, have at.
__FUNCTION__ used to compile to a string literal (I think in gcc 2.96), but it hasn't for many years. Now instead we have __func__, which compiles to a string array, and __FUNCTION__ is a deprecated alias for it. (The change was a bit painful.)
But in neither case was it possible to use this predefined macro to generate a valid C identifier (i.e. "remove the quotes").
But could you instead use the line number rather than function name as part of your identifier?
If so, the following would work. As an example, compiling the following 5-line source file:
#define CONCAT_TOKENS4(a,b,c,d) a##b##c##d
#define EXPAND_THEN_CONCAT4(a,b,c,d) CONCAT_TOKENS4(a,b,c,d)
#define MAKE_AN_IDENTIFIER(x) EXPAND_THEN_CONCAT4(line_,__LINE__,__,x)
static int MAKE_AN_IDENTIFIER(NULL_POINTER_PASSED);
will generate the warning:
foo.c:5: warning: 'line_5__NULL_POINTER_PASSED' defined but not used
As pointed out by others, there is no macro that returns the (unquoted) function name (mainly because the C preprocessor has insufficient syntactic knowledge to recognize functions). You would have to explicitly define such a macro yourself, as you already did yourself:
#define FUNC MYFUNC
To avoid having to do this manually, you could write your own preprocessor to add the macro definition automatically. A similar question is this: How to automatically insert pragmas in your program
If your source code has a consistent coding style (particularly indentation), then a simple line-based filter (sed, awk, perl) might do. In its most naive form: every function starts with a line that does not start with a hash or whitespace, and ends with a closing parenthesis or a comma. With awk:
{
print $0;
}
/^[^# \t].*[,\)][ \t]*$/ {
sub(/\(.*$/, "");
sub(/^.*[ \t]/, "");
print "#define FUNC " toupper($0);
}
For a more robust solution, you need a compiler framework like ROSE.
Gnu-C has a __FUNCTION__ macro, but sadly even that cannot be used in the way you are asking.
I'm a beginner to C, but I've had a bit of experience with some other programing languages like Ruby and Python. I would very much like to create some of my own functions in C that I could use in any of my programs that just make life easier, however I'm a little bit confused about how to do this.
From what I understand the first part of this process is to create a header file that contains all of your prototypes, and I understand that, however from what I understand it is frowned upon to include anything other than declarations in your header files, so would you also need to create a .c file that contained the actual code and then #include that in all your programs along with the header file? But if so, why would you need a header file in the first place, since defining a function also declares it?
Finally, what should you put in the main() function of your header file? Do you just leave it blank, or do you not include it?
Thanks!
The declaration of a function lets the compiler know that at link time such a function will be available. The definition of the function provides that implementation, and additionally it also serves as the declaration. There is no harm in having multiple declarations, but only one implementation can be provided. Also, at least one declaration (or the only implementation) must come before any use of the function - this alone makes forward declarations necessary in cases where two functions call one another (both cannot be before the other).
So, if you have the implementation:
int foo(int a, int b) {
return a * b;
}
The corresponding declaration is simply:
int foo(int a, int b);
(The argument names do not matter in the declaration, i.e., they can be omitted or different than in the implementation. In fact you could declare only int foo(); and it would work for the above function, but this is mainly a legacy thing and not recommended. Note that to declare a function that takes no arguments, put void in the argument list, e.g., int bar(void);)
There are a number of reasons why you would want to have separate headers with only the declaration:
The implementation may be in a separate file, which allows for organisation of code into manageable pieces, and may be compiled by itself and need not be recompiled unless that file has changed - in large projects where the total compilation time can be an hour it would be absurd to re-compile everything for a small change.
The implementation source may not be available, e.g., in case of a closed-source proprietary library.
The implementation may be in a different language with a compatible calling convention.
For practical details on how to write code in multiple files and how to use libraries, please consult a book or tutorial on C programming. As for main, you need not declare it in a header unless you are specifically calling main from another function - the convention of C programs is to call main as int main(int, char**) at start of the execution.
When compiling, each .c-file (or .cpp-file) will be compiled to an own binary first.
If one binary file is using functions from another,
it just knows "there is something outside named xyz" at that time.
Then the linker will put them together in one file and rewrite the parts of each file
which are using functions of other files,
so that they actually know where to find the used functions.
What will happen if you put code in a .h file:
At compilation time, each included h-file in a c-file will be integrated in the c-file.
If you have code for xyz in a h-file and you´re including it in more thana one c-file,
each of this compiled c-files will have a xyz. Then, the linker will be confused...
So, function code have to be in a own c file.
Why use a h-file at all?
Because, if you call xyz in your code, how should the compiler know
if this is a function of another c-file (and which parameters...)
or an error because xyz does not exist?
The reason for header files in c are for when you need the same code in multiple scripts. So if you are just repeated the same code in one script then yes it would be easier to just use a function. Also for header files, yes you would need to include a .c file for all the computations.
I'm following a guide to learn curses, and all of the C code within prototypes functions before main(), then defines them afterward. In my C++ learnings, I had heard about function prototyping but never done it, and as far as I know it doesn't make too much of a difference on how the code is compiled. Is it a programmer's personal choice more than anything else? If so, why was it included in C at all?
Function prototyping originally wasn't included in C. When you called a function, the compiler just took your word for it that it would exist and took the type of arguments you provided. If you got the argument order, number, or type wrong, too bad – your code would fail, possibly in mysterious ways, at runtime.
Later versions of C added function prototyping in order to address these problems. Your arguments are implicitly converted to the declared types under some circumstances or flagged as incompatible with the prototype, and the compiler could flag as an error the wrong order and number of types. This had the side effect of enabling varargs functions and the special argument handling they require.
Note that, in C (and unlike in C++), a function declared foo_t func() is not the same as a function declared as foo_t func(void). The latter is prototyped to have no arguments. The former declares a function without a prototype.
In C prototyping is needed so that your program knows that you have a function called x() when you have not gotten to defining it, that way y() knows that there is and exists a x(). C does top down compilation, so it needs to be defined before hand is the short answer.
x();
y();
main(){
}
y(){
x();
}
x(){
...
more code ...
maybe even y();
}
I was under the impression that it was so customers could have access to the .h file for libraries and see what functions were available to them, without having to see the implementation (which would be in another file).
Useful to see what the function returns/what parameters.
Function prototyping is a remnant from the olden days of compiler writing. It used to be considered horribly inefficient for a compiler to have to make multiple passes over a source file to compile it.
In C, in certain contexts, referring to a function in one manner is syntactically equivalent to referring to a variable: consider taking a pointer to a function versus taking a pointer to a variable. In the compiler's intermediate representation, the two are semantically distinct, but syntactically, whether an identifier is a variable, a function name, or an invalid identifier cannot be determined from the context.
Since it's not determinable from the context, without function prototypes, the compiler would need to make an extra pass over each one of your source files each time one of them compiles. This would add an extra O(n) factor for any compilation (that is, if compilation were O(m), it would now be O(m*n)), where n is the number of files in your project. In large projects, where compilation is already on the order of hours, having a two-pass compiler is highly undesirable.
Forward declaring all your functions would allow the compiler to build a table of functions as it scanned the file, and be able to determine when it encountered an identifier whether it referred to a function or a variable.
As a result of this, C (and by extension, C++) compilers can be extremely efficient in compilation.
It allows you to have a situation in which say you can have an iterator class defined in a separate .h file which includes the parent container class. Since you've included the parent header in the iterator, you can't have a method like say "getIterator()" because the return type would have to be the iterator class and therefore it would require that you include the iterator header inside the parent header creating a cyclic loop of inclusions (one includes the other which includes itself which includes the other again, etc.).
If you put the iterator class prototype inside the parent container, you can have such a method without including the iterator header. It only works because you're simply saying that such an object exists and will be defined.
There are ways of getting around it like having a precompiled header, but in my opinion it's less elegant and comes with a slew of disadvantages. Of couurse this is C++, not C. However, in practice you might have a situation in which you'd like to arrange code in this fashion, classes aside.