Defining macro to change print function error due to argument difference - c

I'm trying to use unity testing framework with an NRF51822 board, but in order to see the output from unity i need to reroute it / pipe so its visible on my coumputer. I am using SEGGER RTT to print in my porject and ideally id use the same for unity.c output.
According to unity
By default, Unity prints its results to stdout as it runs. This
works perfectly fine in most situations where you are using a native
compiler for testing. It works on some simulators as well so long as
they have stdout routed back to the command line. There are times,
however, where the simulator will lack support for dumping results or
you will want to route results elsewhere for other reasons. In these
cases, you should define the UNITY_OUTPUT_CHAR macro. This macro
accepts a single character at a time (as an int, since this is the
parameter type of the standard C putchar function most commonly
used). You may replace this with whatever function call you like.
* Output* - by default, Unity prints to standard out with putchar. define UNITY_OUTPUT_CHAR(a) with a different function if
desired
/*-------------------------------------------------------
* Output Method: stdout (DEFAULT)
*-------------------------------------------------------*/
#ifndef UNITY_OUTPUT_CHAR
/* Default to using putchar, which is defined in stdio.h */
#include <stdio.h>
#define UNITY_OUTPUT_CHAR(a) (void)putchar(a)
#else
/* If defined as something else, make sure we declare it here so it's ready for use */
#ifndef UNITY_OMIT_OUTPUT_CHAR_HEADER_DECLARATION
extern void UNITY_OUTPUT_CHAR(int);
#endif
#endif
I tried to define
#define UNITY_OUTPUT_CHAR(a) SEGGER_RTT_WriteString(0, a)
However i get the following
> $ make rm -rf _build echo Makefile Makefile mkdir _build Compiling
> file: system_nrf51.c Compiling file: main.c
> C:/NXTSNS/nRF5_SDK_11.0.0_89a8197/examples/peripheral/blinky/main.c:31:53:
> error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before numeric
> constant
> #define UNITY_OUTPUT_CHAR(a) SEGGER_RTT_WriteString(0, a)
> ^ C:/NXTSNS/Unittesting/unity/src/unity_internals.h:250:13: note: in
> expansion of macro 'UNITY_OUTPUT_CHAR' extern void
> UNITY_OUTPUT_CHAR(int);
> ^ Makefile:150: recipe for target '_build/main.o' failed make: *** [_build/main.o] Error 1
I also tried this alternative of calling segger in a function and casting to char * as follows
void print_test(int a){
SEGGER_RTT_WriteString(0, (char *) a);
}
but unfortuneatly i dont see any output when i call print_test
How should i define the macro such that i can send the output to segger or if there is a more suitable alternative what is it?

Related

Figure out function parameter count at compile time

I have a C library (with C headers) which exists in two different versions.
One of them has a function that looks like this:
int test(char * a, char * b, char * c, bool d, int e);
And the other version looks like this:
int test(char * a, char * b, char * c, bool d)
(for which e is not given as function parameter but it's hard-coded in the function itself).
The library or its headers do not define / include any way to check for the library version so I can't just use an #if or #ifdef to check for a version number.
Is there any way I can write a C program that can be compiled with both versions of this library, depending on which one is installed when the program is compiled? That way contributors that want to compile my program are free to use either version of the library and the tool would be able to be compiled with either.
So, to clarify, I'm looking for something like this (or similar):
#if HAS_ARGUMENT_COUNT(test, 5)
test("a", "b", "c", true, 20);
#elif HAS_ARGUMENT_COUNT(test, 4)
test("a", "b", "c", true);
#else
#error "wrong argument count"
#endif
Is there any way to do that in C? I was unable to figure out a way.
The library would be libogc ( https://github.com/devkitPro/libogc ) which changed its definition of if_config a while ago, and I'd like to make my program work with both the old and the new version. I was unable to find any version identifier in the library. At the moment I'm using a modified version of GCC 8.3.
This should be done at the configure stage, using an Autoconf (or CMake, or whatever) test step -- basically, attempting to compile a small program which uses the five-parameter signature, and seeing if it compiles successfully -- to determine which version of the library is in use. That can be used to set a preprocessor macro which you can use in an #if block in your code.
I think there's no way to do this at the preprocesing stage (at least not without some external scripts). On the other hand, there is a way to detect a function's signature at compiling time if you're using C11: _Generic. But remember: you can't use this in a macro like #if because primary expressions aren't evaluated at the preprocessing stage, so you can't dynamically choose to call the function with signature 1 or 2 in that stage.
#define WEIRD_LIB_FUNC_TYPE(T) _Generic(&(T), \
int (*)(char *, char *, char *, bool, int): 1, \
int (*)(char *, char *, char *, bool): 2, \
default: 0)
printf("test's signature: %d\n", WEIRD_LIB_FUNC_TYPE(test));
// will print 1 if 'test' expects the extra argument, or 2 otherwise
I'm sorry if this does not answer your question. If you really can't detect the version from the "stock" library header file, there are workarounds where you can #ifdef something that's only present in a specific version of that library.
This is just a horrible library design.
Update: after reading the comments, I should clarify for future readers that it isn't possible in the preprocessing stage but it is possible at compile time still. You'd just have to conditionally cast the function call based on my snippet above.
typedef int (*TYPE_A)(char *, char *, char *, bool, int);
typedef int (*TYPE_B)(char *, char *, char *, bool);
int newtest(char *a, char *b, char *c, bool d, int e) {
void (*func)(void) = (void (*)(void))&test;
if (_Generic(&test, TYPE_A: 1, TYPE_B: 2, default: 0) == 1) {
return ((TYPE_A)func)(a, b, c, d, e);
}
return ((TYPE_B)func)(a, b, c, d);
}
This indeed works although it might be controversial to cast a function this way. The upside is, as #pizzapants184 said, the condition will be optimized away because the _Generic call will be evaluated at compile-time.
I don't see any way to do that with standard C, if you are compiling with gcc a very very ugly way can be using gcc aux-info in a command and passing the number of parameters with -D:
#!/bin/sh
gcc -aux-info output.info demo.c
COUNT=`grep "extern int foo" output.info | tr -dc "," | wc -m`
rm output.info
gcc -o demo demo.c -DCOUNT="$COUNT + 1"
./demo
This snippet
#include <stdio.h>
int foo(int a, int b, int c);
#ifndef COUNT
#define COUNT 0
#endif
int main(void)
{
printf("foo has %d parameters\n", COUNT);
return 0;
}
outputs
foo has 3 parameters
Attempting to support compiling code with multiple versions of a static library serves no useful purpose. Update your code to use the latest release and stop making life more difficult than it needs to be.
In Dennis Ritchie's original C language, a function could be passed any number of arguments, regardless of the number of parameters it expected, provided that the function didn't access any parameters beyond those that were passed to it. Even on platforms whose normal calling convention wouldn't be able to accommodate this flexibility, C compilers would generally used a different calling convention that could support it unless functions were marked with qualifiers like pascal to indicate that they should use the ordinary calling convention.
Thus, something like the following would have had fully defined behavior in Ritchie's original C language:
int addTwoOrThree(count, x, y, z)
int count, x, y, z;
{
if (count == 3)
return x+y+z;
else
return x+y;
}
int test()
{
return count(2, 10,20) + count(3, 1,2,3);
}
Because there are some platforms where it would be impractical to support such flexibility by default, the C Standard does not require that compilers meaningfully process any calls to functions which have more or fewer arguments than expected, except that functions which have been declared with a ... parameter will "expect" any number of arguments that is at least as large as the number of actual specified parameters. It is thus rare for code to be written that would exploit the flexibility that was present in Ritchie's language. Nonetheless, many implementations will still accept code written to support that pattern if the function being called is in a separate compilation unit from the callers, and it is declared but not prototyped within the compilation units that call it.
you don't.
the tools you're working with are statically linked and don't support versioning.
you can get around it using all kind of tricks and tips that have been mentioned, but at the end of the day they are ugly patch works of something you're trying to do that makes no sense in this context(toolkit/code environment).
you design your code for the version of the toolkit you have installed. its a hard requirement. i also don't understand why you would want to design your gamecube/wii code to allow building on different versions.
the toolkit is constantly changing to fix bugs, assumptions etc etc.
if you want your code to use an old version that potentially have bugs or do things wrong, that is on you.
i think you should realize what kind of botch work you're dealing with here if you need or want to do this with an constantly evolving toolkit..
I also think, but this is because i know you and your relationship with DevKitPro, i assume you ask this because you have an older version installed and your CI builds won't work because they use a newer version (from docker). its either this, or you have multiple versions installed on your machine for a different project you build (but won't update source for some odd reason).
If your compiler is a recent GCC, e.g. some GCC 10 in November 2020, you might write your own GCC plugin to check the signature in your header files (and emit appropriate and related C preprocessor #define-s and/or #ifdef, à la GNU autoconf). Your plugin could (for example) fill some sqlite database and you would later generate some #include-d header file.
You then would set up your build automation (e.g. your Makefile) to use that GCC plugin and the data it has computed when needed.
For a single function, such an approach is overkill.
For some large project, it could make sense, in particular if you also decide to also code some project-specific coding rules validator in your GCC plugin.
Writing a GCC plugin could take weeks of your time, and you may need to patch your plugin source code when you would switch to a future GCC 11.
See also this draft report and the European CHARIOT and DECODER projects (funding the work described in that report).
BTW, you might ask the authors of that library to add some versioning metadata. Inspiration might come from libonion or Glib or libgccjit.
BTW, as rightly commented in this issue, you should not use an unmaintained old version of some opensource library. Use the one that is worked on.
I'd like to make my program work with both the old and the new version.
Why?
making your program work with the old (unmaintained) version of libogc is adding burden to both you and them. I don't understand why you would depend upon some old unmaintained library, if you can avoid doing that.
PS. You could of course write a plugin for GCC 8. I do recommend switching to GCC 10: it did improve.
I'm not sure this solves your specific problem, or helps you at all, but here's a preprocessor contraption, due to Laurent Deniau, that counts the number of arguments passed to a function at compile time.
Meaning, something like args_count(a,b,c) evaluates (at compile time) to the constant literal constant 3, and something like args_count(__VA_ARGS__) (within a variadic macro) evaluates (at compile time) to the number of arguments passed to the macro.
This allows you, for instance, to call variadic functions without specifying the number of arguments, because the preprocessor does it for you.
So, if you have a variadic function
void function_backend(int N, ...){
// do stuff
}
where you (typically) HAVE to pass the number of arguments N, you can automate that process by writing a "frontend" variadic macro
#define function_frontend(...) function_backend(args_count(__VA_ARGS__), __VA_ARGS__)
And now you call function_frontend() with as many arguments as you want:
I made you Youtube tutorial about this.
#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdarg.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#define m_args_idim__get_arg100( \
arg00,arg01,arg02,arg03,arg04,arg05,arg06,arg07,arg08,arg09,arg0a,arg0b,arg0c,arg0d,arg0e,arg0f, \
arg10,arg11,arg12,arg13,arg14,arg15,arg16,arg17,arg18,arg19,arg1a,arg1b,arg1c,arg1d,arg1e,arg1f, \
arg20,arg21,arg22,arg23,arg24,arg25,arg26,arg27,arg28,arg29,arg2a,arg2b,arg2c,arg2d,arg2e,arg2f, \
arg30,arg31,arg32,arg33,arg34,arg35,arg36,arg37,arg38,arg39,arg3a,arg3b,arg3c,arg3d,arg3e,arg3f, \
arg40,arg41,arg42,arg43,arg44,arg45,arg46,arg47,arg48,arg49,arg4a,arg4b,arg4c,arg4d,arg4e,arg4f, \
arg50,arg51,arg52,arg53,arg54,arg55,arg56,arg57,arg58,arg59,arg5a,arg5b,arg5c,arg5d,arg5e,arg5f, \
arg60,arg61,arg62,arg63,arg64,arg65,arg66,arg67,arg68,arg69,arg6a,arg6b,arg6c,arg6d,arg6e,arg6f, \
arg70,arg71,arg72,arg73,arg74,arg75,arg76,arg77,arg78,arg79,arg7a,arg7b,arg7c,arg7d,arg7e,arg7f, \
arg80,arg81,arg82,arg83,arg84,arg85,arg86,arg87,arg88,arg89,arg8a,arg8b,arg8c,arg8d,arg8e,arg8f, \
arg90,arg91,arg92,arg93,arg94,arg95,arg96,arg97,arg98,arg99,arg9a,arg9b,arg9c,arg9d,arg9e,arg9f, \
arga0,arga1,arga2,arga3,arga4,arga5,arga6,arga7,arga8,arga9,argaa,argab,argac,argad,argae,argaf, \
argb0,argb1,argb2,argb3,argb4,argb5,argb6,argb7,argb8,argb9,argba,argbb,argbc,argbd,argbe,argbf, \
argc0,argc1,argc2,argc3,argc4,argc5,argc6,argc7,argc8,argc9,argca,argcb,argcc,argcd,argce,argcf, \
argd0,argd1,argd2,argd3,argd4,argd5,argd6,argd7,argd8,argd9,argda,argdb,argdc,argdd,argde,argdf, \
arge0,arge1,arge2,arge3,arge4,arge5,arge6,arge7,arge8,arge9,argea,argeb,argec,arged,argee,argef, \
argf0,argf1,argf2,argf3,argf4,argf5,argf6,argf7,argf8,argf9,argfa,argfb,argfc,argfd,argfe,argff, \
arg100, ...) arg100
#define m_args_idim(...) m_args_idim__get_arg100(, ##__VA_ARGS__, \
0xff,0xfe,0xfd,0xfc,0xfb,0xfa,0xf9,0xf8,0xf7,0xf6,0xf5,0xf4,0xf3,0xf2,0xf1,0xf0, \
0xef,0xee,0xed,0xec,0xeb,0xea,0xe9,0xe8,0xe7,0xe6,0xe5,0xe4,0xe3,0xe2,0xe1,0xe0, \
0xdf,0xde,0xdd,0xdc,0xdb,0xda,0xd9,0xd8,0xd7,0xd6,0xd5,0xd4,0xd3,0xd2,0xd1,0xd0, \
0xcf,0xce,0xcd,0xcc,0xcb,0xca,0xc9,0xc8,0xc7,0xc6,0xc5,0xc4,0xc3,0xc2,0xc1,0xc0, \
0xbf,0xbe,0xbd,0xbc,0xbb,0xba,0xb9,0xb8,0xb7,0xb6,0xb5,0xb4,0xb3,0xb2,0xb1,0xb0, \
0xaf,0xae,0xad,0xac,0xab,0xaa,0xa9,0xa8,0xa7,0xa6,0xa5,0xa4,0xa3,0xa2,0xa1,0xa0, \
0x9f,0x9e,0x9d,0x9c,0x9b,0x9a,0x99,0x98,0x97,0x96,0x95,0x94,0x93,0x92,0x91,0x90, \
0x8f,0x8e,0x8d,0x8c,0x8b,0x8a,0x89,0x88,0x87,0x86,0x85,0x84,0x83,0x82,0x81,0x80, \
0x7f,0x7e,0x7d,0x7c,0x7b,0x7a,0x79,0x78,0x77,0x76,0x75,0x74,0x73,0x72,0x71,0x70, \
0x6f,0x6e,0x6d,0x6c,0x6b,0x6a,0x69,0x68,0x67,0x66,0x65,0x64,0x63,0x62,0x61,0x60, \
0x5f,0x5e,0x5d,0x5c,0x5b,0x5a,0x59,0x58,0x57,0x56,0x55,0x54,0x53,0x52,0x51,0x50, \
0x4f,0x4e,0x4d,0x4c,0x4b,0x4a,0x49,0x48,0x47,0x46,0x45,0x44,0x43,0x42,0x41,0x40, \
0x3f,0x3e,0x3d,0x3c,0x3b,0x3a,0x39,0x38,0x37,0x36,0x35,0x34,0x33,0x32,0x31,0x30, \
0x2f,0x2e,0x2d,0x2c,0x2b,0x2a,0x29,0x28,0x27,0x26,0x25,0x24,0x23,0x22,0x21,0x20, \
0x1f,0x1e,0x1d,0x1c,0x1b,0x1a,0x19,0x18,0x17,0x16,0x15,0x14,0x13,0x12,0x11,0x10, \
0x0f,0x0e,0x0d,0x0c,0x0b,0x0a,0x09,0x08,0x07,0x06,0x05,0x04,0x03,0x02,0x01,0x00, \
)
typedef struct{
int32_t x0,x1;
}ivec2;
int32_t max0__ivec2(int32_t nelems, ...){ // The largest component 0 in a list of 2D integer vectors
int32_t max = ~(1ll<<31) + 1; // Assuming two's complement
va_list args;
va_start(args, nelems);
for(int i=0; i<nelems; ++i){
ivec2 a = va_arg(args, ivec2);
max = max > a.x0 ? max : a.x0;
}
va_end(args);
return max;
}
#define max0_ivec2(...) max0__ivec2(m_args_idim(__VA_ARGS__), __VA_ARGS__)
int main(){
int32_t max = max0_ivec2(((ivec2){0,1}), ((ivec2){2,3}, ((ivec2){4,5}), ((ivec2){6,7})));
printf("%d\n", max);
}

Check if a system implements a function

I'm creating a cross-system application. It uses, for example, the function itoa, which is implemented on some systems but not all. If I simply provide my own itoa implementation:
header.h:115:13: error: conflicting types for 'itoa'
extern void itoa(int, char[]);
In file included from header.h:2:0,
from file.c:2:0,
c:\path\to\mingw\include\stdlib.h:631:40: note: previous declaration of 'itoa' was here
_CRTIMP __cdecl __MINGW_NOTHROW char* itoa (int, char*, int);
I know I can check if macros are predefined and define them if not:
#ifndef _SOME_MACRO
#define _SOME_MACRO 45
#endif
Is there a way to check if a C function is pre-implemented, and if not, implement it? Or to simply un-implement a function?
Given you have already written your own implementation of itoa(), I would recommend that you rename it and use it everywhere. At least you are sure you will get the same behavior on all platforms, and avoid the linking issue.
Don't forget to explain your choice in the comments of your code...
I assume you are using GCC, as I can see MinGW in your path... there's one way the GNU linker can take care of this for you. So you don't know whether there is an itoa implementation or not. Try this:
Create a new file (without any headers) called my_itoa.c:
char *itoa (int, char *, int);
char *my_itoa (int a, char *b, int c)
{
return itoa(a, b, c);
}
Now create another file, impl_itoa.c. Here, write the implementation of itoa but add a weak alias:
char* __attribute__ ((weak)) itoa(int a, char *b, int c)
{
// implementation here
}
Compile all of the files, with impl_itoa.c at the end.
This way, if itoa is not available in the standard library, this one will be linked. You can be confident about it compiling whether or not it's available.
Ajay Brahmakshatriya's suggestion is a good one, but unfortunately MinGW doesn't support weak definition last I checked (see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mingwusers/44B4QMPo8lQ, for instance).
However, I believe weak references do work in MinGW. Take this minimal example:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
__attribute__ ((weak)) char* itoa (int, char*, int);
char* my_itoa (int a, char* b, int c)
{
if(itoa != NULL) {
return itoa(a, b, c);
} else {
// toy implementation for demo purposes
// replace with your own implementation
strcpy(b, "no itoa");
return b;
}
}
int main()
{
char *str = malloc((sizeof(int)*3+1));
my_itoa(10, str, 10);
printf("str: %s\n", str);
return 0;
}
If the system provides an itoa implementation, that should be used and the output would be
str: 10
Otherwise, you'll get
str: no itoa
There are two really important related points worth making here along the "don't do it like this" lines:
Don't use atoi because it's not safe.
Don't use atoi because it's not a standard function, and there are good standard functions (such as snprintf) which are available to do what you want.
But, putting all this aside for one moment, I want to introduce you to autoconf, part of the GNU build system. autoconf is part of a very comprehensive, very portable set of tools which aim to make it easier to write code which can be built successfully on a wide range of target systems. Some would argue that autoconf is too complex a system to solve just the one problem you pose with just one library function, but as any program grows, it's likely to face more hurdles like this, and getting autoconf set up for your program now will put you in a much stronger position for the future.
Start with a file called Makefile.in which contains:
CFLAGS=--ansi --pedantic -Wall -W
program: program.o
program.o: program.c
clean:
rm -f program.o program
and a file called configure.ac which contains:
AC_PREREQ([2.69])
AC_INIT(program, 1.0)
AC_CONFIG_SRCDIR([program.c])
AC_CONFIG_HEADERS([config.h])
# Checks for programs.
AC_PROG_CC
# Checks for library functions.
AH_TEMPLATE([HAVE_ITOA], [Set to 1 if function atoi() is available.])
AC_CHECK_FUNC([itoa],
[AC_DEFINE([HAVE_ITOA], [1])]
)
AC_CONFIG_FILES([Makefile])
AC_OUTPUT
and a file called program.c which contains:
#include <stdio.h>
#include "config.h"
#ifndef HAVE_ITOA
/*
* WARNING: This code is for demonstration purposes only. Your
* implementation must have a way of ensuring that the size of the string
* produced does not overflow the buffer provided.
*/
void itoa(int n, char* p) {
sprintf(p, "%d", n);
}
#endif
int main(void) {
char buffer[100];
itoa(10, buffer);
printf("Result: %s\n", buffer);
return 0;
}
Now run the following commands in turn:
autoheader: This generates a new file called config.h.in which we'll need later.
autoconf: This generates a configuration script called configure
./configure: This runs some tests, including checking that you have a working C compiler and, because we've asked it to, whether an itoa function is available. It writes its results into the file config.h for later.
make: This compiles and links the program.
./program: This finally runs the program.
During the ./configure step, you'll see quite a lot of output, including something like:
checking for itoa... no
In this case, you'll see that the config.h find contains the following lines:
/* Set to 1 if function atoi() is available. */
/* #undef HAVE_ITOA */
Alternatively, if you do have atoi available, you'll see:
checking for itoa... yes
and this in config.h:
/* Set to 1 if function atoi() is available. */
#define HAVE_ITOA 1
You'll see that the program can now read the config.h header and choose to define itoa if it's not present.
Yes, it's a long way round to solve your problem, but you've now started using a very powerful tool which can help you in a great number of ways.
Good luck!

How to catch undefined preprocessor macro with gcc?

I've been working on a piece of code that had an overlooked derp in it:
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<limits.h>
#define MAX_N_LENGTH
/*function prototypes*/
int main(){
...
}
It should be easy to spot with the context removed: #define MAX_N_LENGTH should have read #define MAX_N_LENGTH 9. I have no idea where that trailing constant went.
Since that macro was only used in one place in the form of char buf[ MAX_N_LENGTH + 1], it was extremely difficult to track down and debug the program.
Is there a way to catch errors like this one using the gcc compiler?
You can use char buf[1 + MAX_N_LENGTH], because char buf[1 +] should not compile with the error message error: expected expression before ']' token:
http://ideone.com/5m2LYw
What you have there isn't an undefined macro. It's an empty macro. And defined empty macros are perfectly legit, because you can test for their definedness.
They're used quite a lot in the implementation header files, although all those empty macros will be in the implementation namespace, which means they will either contain two underscores or an underscore followed by an uppercase letter.
What you could do is test whether you have an empty macro that's not in the implementation namespace, and you can do that with:
cpp -dM YOUR_FILE.c |
cut -d\ -f2- | grep '^[a-zA-Z0-9_]* $' |grep -v -e __ -e ^_[A-Z]
For your example, it should output just MAX_N_LENGTH.
It's not possible to catch this error in the general sense, because it isn't an error. There's plenty of cases where this sort of behavior is desired, so the compiler cannot treat it as an error or a warning.
If you can track the error down to a line, using gcc's -E command line argument will cause it to output the result of the preprocessor. In that case, your char line would have turned to char buf[+1], which is legal C code, but might catch your attention because you expected it to be char buf[9+1]. -E causes gcc to print those results, so you would actually see char buf[+1] in the output of gcc.
Issues like this are why C++ discourages use of define macros in this way (C++, of course, has more alternatives than C which makes it easier to discourage them)
You can use the preprocessor to catch when a macro is either 0 or defined without a value:
#define VAR
#if VAR+0 == 0
#error "VAR is either 0 or defined without a value."
#endif

Expanding a dynamic macro inside printf function

I want to compile a c program under different names. In the main file, I have the following macro:
#ifndef EXECUTABLE_NAME
#define EXECUTABLE_NAME "defaultname"
#endif
When compiling using gcc, I use -D switch to define this macro (is that the right term?):
$ gcc main.c -DEXECUTABLE_NAME="newname"
I do not know if the -D works fine or not because when I try to do something like the code below...it fails...I can not tell if the -D switch is screwing up or the syntax of using the macro inside the printf() function is not correct:
printf("no or invalid arguments. usage: %s [0,255]\n", EXECUTABLE_NAME);
I get this error:
main.c:48:57: note: in expansion of macro ‘EXECUTABLE_NAME’
printf("no or invalid arguments. usage: %s [0,255]\n", EXECUTABLE_NAME);
Any suggestions?
It works, and you can see that because of the error. Which by the way is because you're defining your macro wrong on the command line, this is how you quote a string in a macro:
$ gcc main.c -DEXECUTABLE_NAME='"newname"'
And this said, it's not even needed. The executable path is always your first argument: *argv.
I tried this program with an integer, which is as follows
#ifndef EXECUTABLE_NAME
#define EXECUTABLE_NAME 2
#endif
int main()
{
printf("%d",EXECUTABLE_NAME);
}
and then typed gcc main.c -DEXECUTABLE_NAME=1 and it works as the value changes to 1. Is it a problem with the data type 'string' that you are using?

use gcc compile a project that shows "undefined reference to `abort'"

I wrote a printf myselef that use va_list/va_arg/va_start/va_end/va_arg.
typedef char *va_list;
#define _AUPBND (sizeof (acpi_native_int) - 1)
#define _ADNBND (sizeof (acpi_native_int) - 1)
#define _bnd(X, bnd) (((sizeof (X)) + (bnd)) & (~(bnd)))
#define va_arg(ap, T) (*(T *)(((ap) += (_bnd (T, _AUPBND))) - (_bnd (T,_ADNBND))))
#define va_end(ap) (void) 0
#define va_start(ap, A) (void) ((ap) = (((char *) &(A)) + (_bnd (A,_AUPBND))))
At first,I copy these macros from linux kernel and the printf can print 32-bit integer correct but cannot print 64-bit integer and print double/float may fail or collapse.Then I check the code and I guess the va_* may have errors,so I use __builtin_va_* instead of kernel's va_*.
typedef __builtin_va_list va_list;
#define va_start(v,l) __builtin_va_start(v,l)
#define va_end(v) __builtin_va_end(v)
#define va_arg(v,l) __builtin_va_arg(v,l)
But gcc prompt "undefined reference to `abort'",so I write a empty abort() and myprintf works corretly.
My questions are:
Why linux kernel's va_list/va_arg/va_start/va_end/va_arg can not used for printf 64-bit integer and double/float?
When I used __builtin_va_start/__builtin_va_arg/__builtin_va_end/__builtin_va_list, why gcc prompt "undefined reference to abort'"? But I can not find the definition of__builtin_va_*`, where're their definition?
Don't cut and paste things from the Linux headers. Instead, put this at the top of your source file:
#include <stdarg.h>
This will give you everything you need in order to use va_list and va_arg. However, it won't pull in printf or any of the standard I/O stuff (which lives in <stdio.h>).
gcc's __builtin_va_arg() apparently will call abort() (at least on some platforms or situations) if it's invoked with a type argument cannot have been passed in the ... part of the argument list for a function call.
For example, due to promotions a char or float passed as such an argument will have been promoted to int or double. Accessing those arguments as va_arg(ap,char) or va_arg(ap,float) is undefined behavior and gcc may call abort() in that situation - or it may do something else (my MinGW compiler will execute an invalid instruction to cause a crash).
You might see something like this when compiled:
In file included from D:\temp\test.c:2:0:
D:\temp\test.c: In function 'foo':
D:\temp\test.c:12:16: warning: 'char' is promoted to 'int' when passed through '...' [enabled by default]
c = va_arg(ap,char);
^
D:\temp\test.c:12:16: note: (so you should pass 'int' not 'char' to 'va_arg')
D:\temp\test.c:12:16: note: if this code is reached, the program will abort
The 'definition' of __builtin_va_* is compiled into the compiler (that's why 'builtin' is part of the name).
As far as the Linux macros for varargs access: while the definitions you took from a linux kernel header do exist in include/acpi/platform/acenv.h, if you look carefully at the conditional compilation in effect, you'll see that those macros aren't used when building the linux kernel. I'm not exactly sure when those macros are in effect, but they won't work with x64/x86-64/amd64 builds because the ABI on that platform isn't entirely stack-based. See section 3.5.6 of the "System V Application Binary Interface - AMD64 Architecture Processor Supplement" for details.

Resources