I was reading the C Preprocessor guide page on gnu.org on computed includes which has the following explanation:
2.6 Computed Includes
Sometimes it is necessary to select one of several different header
files to be included into your program. They might specify
configuration parameters to be used on different sorts of operating
systems, for instance. You could do this with a series of
conditionals,
#if SYSTEM_1
# include "system_1.h"
#elif SYSTEM_2
# include "system_2.h"
#elif SYSTEM_3 …
#endif
That rapidly becomes tedious. Instead, the preprocessor offers the
ability to use a macro for the header name. This is called a computed
include. Instead of writing a header name as the direct argument of
‘#include’, you simply put a macro name there instead:
#define SYSTEM_H "system_1.h"
…
#include SYSTEM_H
This doesn't make sense to me. The first code snippet allows for optionality based on which system type you encounter by using branching if elifs. The second seems to have no optionality as a macro is used to define a particular system type and then the macro is placed into the include statement without any code that would imply its definition can be changed. Yet, the text implies these are equivalent and that the second is a shorthand for the first. Can anyone explain how the optionality of the first code snippet exists in the second? I also don't know what code is implied to be contained in the "..." in the second code snippet.
There's some other places in the code or build system that define or don't define the macros that are being tested in the conditionals. What's suggested is that instead of those places defining lots of different SYSTEM_1, SYSTEM_2, etc. macros, they'll just define SYSTEM_H to the value that's desired.
Most likely this won't actually be in an explicit #define, instead of will be in a compiler option, e.g.
gcc -DSYSTEM_H='"system_1.h"' ...
And this will most likely actually come from a setting in a makefile or other configuration file.
Related
The LLVM libc++ headers have a macro, used in function declarations, named _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY.
I don't understand what it means; I looked at its definition, and it says:
// Just so we can migrate to the new macros gradually.
#define _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI
... and this second macro has no definition I can find. So, what does _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY mean and what is it typically expanded into?
(Thanks, #Ruslan)
The intent is to hide functions marked with it from appearing in dynamic libraries ("hide from the ABI"). This used to be done by making such functions inline only, but now, the clang attribute attribute((internal_linkage)) is used; that's the definition of _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI.
As for the inline-for-invisibility macro _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY - what you're seeing is it being redefined to what its name should have been to being with.
When I compile my c project with make command, there is the error
Error: #47-D: incompatible redefinition of macro "MACRO_NAME"
It looks like MACRO_NAME is already defined in one of the header files, but I want to redefine or hardcode new value for MACRO_NAME.
How to remove this error?
There is no clean way to define this macro so that it realiably and predictably is not used in the meaning of one of the definitions, when the other one is meant.
If you use a mechanism with undef, then you run the risk to undefine the other meaning, define it to your meaning and then end up with code which expects the other meaning seeing and using your meaning.
The only way to achieve reliability and predictability is to make sure that code which expects one meaning does not include (neither directly nor indirectly) the header which defines the other meaning.
You can do so by
a) defining in a way that neither definition can be done when the other one is already defined. To do so, in both cases
#ifdef MACRO_NAME
#error Separation of the two meanings of MACRO_NAME failed!
/* the other definition of MACRO_NAME is alreay visible */
#endif
#define MACRO_NAME MyMeaning
b) make sure that no code includes both definitions
Actually a) is only a technical help to make sure b). If you say that you will not ever include both definitions into one code file, then you have no problem. In that case, you do not get the #error from a). In that case you do not have a problem with using the wrong definition. Good. How do you know? How can you be sure that you do not have the problem, even if you change code, even if your colleague changes code? Use a), then you will be clearly told when you get caught by the redefinition trap. If you use #undef instead, then you have not prevented the problem, just hidden it and made it harder to debug.
c) in the case that you can only influence one of the two definitions, i.e. the other one is by another supplier, the best way is to change the name of your own definition. Whatever effort that causes in your code, it will be less than getting caught be unintended redefinition problems.
d) in the case that you cannot influence any of the two definitions (which is of course NOT the case you are asking about) you have to separate the code files into two groups, those who use one definition and not the other and the group which uses the other definition and only that one.
Use #undef to redefine MACRO in the header file when it is needed
#ifdef MACRO_NAME
#undef MACRO_NAME
#endif
#define MACRO_NAME 100
I want to run simple analysis on C files (such as if you call foo macro with INT_TYPE as argument, then cast the response to int*), I do not want to prerprocess the file, I just want to parse it (so that, for instance, I'll have correct line numbers).
Ie, I want to get from
#include <a.h>
#define FOO(f)
int f() {FOO(1);}
an list of tokens like
<include_directive value="a.h"/>
<macro name="FOO"><param name="f"/><result/></macro>
<function name="f">
<return>int</return>
<body>
<macro_call name="FOO"><param>1</param></macro_call>
</body>
</function>
with no need to set include path, etc.
Is there any preexisting parser that does it? All parsers I know assume C is preprocessed. I want to have access to the macros and actual include instructions.
Our C Front End can parse code containing preprocesser elements can do this to fair extent and still build a usable AST. (Yes, the parse tree has precise file/line/column number information).
There are a number of restrictions, which allows it to handle most code. In those few cases it cannot handle, often a small, easy change to the source file giving equivalent code solves the problem.
Here's a rough set of rules and restrictions:
#includes and #defines can occur wherever a declaration or statement can occur, but not in the middle of a statement. These rarely cause a problem.
macro calls can occur where function calls occur in expressions, or can appear without semicolon in place of statements. Macro calls that span non-well-formed chunks are not handled well (anybody surprised?). The latter occur occasionally but not rarely and need manual revision. OP's example of "j(v,oid)*" is problematic, but this is really rare in code.
#if ... #endif must be wrapped around major language concepts (nonterminals) (constant, expression, statement, declaration, function) or sequences of such entities, or around certain non-well-formed but commonly occurring idioms, such as if (exp) {. Each arm of the conditional must contain the same kind of syntactic construct as the other arms. #if wrapped around random text used as bad kind of comment is problematic, but easily fixed in the source by making a real comment. Where these conditions are not met, you need to modify the original source code, often by moving the #if #elsif #else #end a few tokens.
In our experience, one can revise a code base of 50,000 lines in a few hours to get around these issues. While that seems annoying (and it is), the alternative is to not be able to parse the source code at all, which is far worse than annoying.
You also want more than just a parser. See Life After Parsing, to know what happens after you succeed in getting a parse tree. We've done some additional work in building symbol tables in which the declarations are recorded with the preprocessor context in which they are embedded, enabling type checking to include the preprocessor conditions.
You can have a look at this ANTLR grammar. You will have to add rules for preprocessor tokens, though.
Your specific example can be handled by writing your own parsing and ignore macro expansion.
Because FOO(1) itself can be interpreted as a function call.
When more cases are considered however, the parser is much more difficult. You can refer PDF Link to find more information.
I am using both the JUCE Library and a number of Boost headers in my code. Juce defines "T" as a macro (groan), and Boost often uses "T" in it's template definitions. The result is that if you somehow include the JUCE headers before the Boost headers the preprocessor expands the JUCE macro in the Boost code, and then the compiler gets hopelessly lost.
Keeping my includes in the right order isn't hard most of the time, but it can get tricky when you have a JUCE class that includes some other classes and somewhere up the chain one file includes Boost, and if any of the files before it needed a JUCE include you're in trouble.
My initial hope at fixing this was to
#undef T
before any includes for Boost. But the problem is, if I don't re-define it, then other code gets confused that "T" is not declared.
I then thought that maybe I could do some circular #define trickery like so:
// some includes up here
#define ___T___ T
#undef T
// include boost headers here
#define T ___T___
#undef ___T___
Ugly, but I thought it may work.
Sadly no. I get errors in places using "T" as a macro that
'___T___' was not declared in this scope.
Is there a way to make these two libraries work reliably together?
As greyfade pointed out, your ___T___ trick doesn't work because the preprocessor is a pretty simple creature. An alternative approach is to use pragma directives:
// juice includes here
#pragma push_macro("T")
#undef T
// include boost headers here
#pragma pop_macro("T")
That should work in MSVC++ and GCC has added support for pop_macro and push_macro for compatibility with it. Technically it is implementation-dependent though, but I don't think there's a standard way of temporarily suppressing the definition.
Can you wrap the offending library in another include and trap the #define T inside?
eg:
JUICE_wrapper.h:
#include "juice.h"
#undef T
main.cpp:
#include "JUICE_wrapper.h"
#include "boost.h"
rest of code....
I then thought that maybe I could do some circular #define trickery like so:
The C Preprocessor doesn't work this way. Preprocessor symbols aren't defined in the same sense that a symbol is given meaning when, e.g., you define a function.
It might help to think of the preprocessor as a text-replace engine. When a symbol is defined, it's treated as a straight-up text-replace until the end of the file or until it's undefined. Its value is not stored anywhere, and so, can't be copied. Therefore, the only way to restore the definition of T after you've #undefed it is to completely reproduce its value in a new #define later in your code.
The best you can do is to simply not use Boost or petition the developers of JUCE to not use T as a macro. (Or, worst case, fix it yourself by changing the name of the macro.)
I would like to know if it's possible that inside the main() function from C to include something.
For instance, in a Cell program i define the parameters for cache-api.h that later in the main() function i want to change .
I understood that what was defined with #define can be undefined with #undef anywhere in the program, but after redefining my needed parameters I have to include cache-api.h again . Is that possible?
How can I solve this problem more elegant ? Supposing I want to read from the main storage with cache_rd(...) but the types would differ during the execution of a SPU, how can i use both #define CACHED_TYPE struct x and #define CACHED_TYPE struct y in the same program?
Thanks in advance for the answer, i hope i am clear in expression.
#define and #include are just textual operations that take place during the 'preprocessing' phase of compilation, which is technically an optional phase. So you can mix and match them in all sorts of ways and as long as your preprocessor syntax is correct it will work.
However if you do redefine macros with #undef your code will be hard to follow because the same text could have different meanings in different places in the code.
For custom types typedef is much preferred where possible because you can still benefit from the type checking mechanism of the compiler and it is less error-prone because it is much less likely than #define macros to have unexpected side-effects on surrounding code.
Yes, that's fine (may not be the clearest design decision) but a #include is just like a copy-and-paste of that file into the code right where the #include is.
#define and #include are pre-processor macros: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_preprocessor
They are converted / inlined before compilation.
To answer your question ... no, you really wouldn't want do do that, at least for the sake of the next guy that has to try and unscramble that mess.
You can #include any file in any file. Whether it is then valid depends on the content of the file; specifically whether that content would be valid if it were entered directly as text.
Header files generally contain declarations and constructs that are normally only valid outside of a function definition (or outside any kind of encoding construct) - the clue is in the name header file. Otherwise you may change the scope of the declarations, or more likley render the compilation unit syntactically invalid.
An include file written specially for the purpose may be fine, but not just any arbitrary header file.
General purpose header files should have include guards to prevent multiple declaration, so unless you undefine the guard macro, re-including a header file will have no effect in any case.
One possible solution to your problem is to create separately compiled modules (compilation units) containing wrapper functions to the API you need to call. Each compilation unit can then include the API header file after defining the appropriate configuration macros. You will then have two separate and independent interfaces provided by these wrapper functions.