Full macro in header file - c

I found a header to define hashtable with the following code :
#ifndef HASH_H
#define HASH_H
#define DEFINE_HASHTABLE(name, type, key, h_list, hashfunc)\
\
struct list * hashtable;\
\
static int hashtable_init (size_t size)\
{\
unsigned long i;\
hashtable = (struct list*)malloc(size * sizeof (struct list_head));\
if (!hashtable)\
return -1;\
for (i = 0; i < size; i++)\
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&hashtable[i]);\
return 0;\
}\
\
static inline void hashtable_add(type *elem)\
{\
struct list_head *head = hashtable + hashfunc(elem->key);\
list_add(&elem->h_list, head);\
}\
\
static inline void hashtable_del(type *elem)\
{\
list_del(&elem->h_list);\
}\
\
static inline type * hashtable_find(unsigned long key)\
{\
type *elem;\
struct list_head *head = hashtable + hashfunc(key);\
\
list_for_each_entry(elem, head, h_list){\
if (elem->key == key) \
return elem; \
}\
return NULL;\
}
#endif /* _HASH_H */
I never seen a header file such this one. What is the advantage of this way to write a header (I mean full macro)? Is it about genericity or things like that?

It's a way to try to ensure that all the hash function calls have their inline request granted, i.e. to reduce the number of function calls when doing hash table operations.
It's just an attempt, it can't guarantee that the functions will be inlined, but by making them static the chance at least improves. See this question for lots of discussion about this, in particular #Christoph's answer here.
Note that it will only work once per C file, since there's no "unique" part added to the function names.
If you do:
#include "hash.h"
DEFINE_HASHTABLE(foo, /* rest of arguments */);
DEFINE_HASHTABLE(bar, /* another bunch of args */);
you will get compilation errors, since all the hashtable_ functions will be defined twice. The macro writer could improve this by adding the name to all the things defined (variables and functions) by the set of macros.
I.e. this:
struct list * hashtable;\
\
static int hashtable_init (size_t size)\
should become something like:
static list *hashtable_ ##name;\
\
static int hashtable_ ##name ##_init(size_t size)\
and so on (where name is the first macro argument, i.e. the foo and bar from my example usage above).

Related

C Macros function definition syntax question

I've been looking through a program called hickit, and at one point (count.c, function starts at line 105), and they call a macros function (kavl_insert) from the Klib library as follows:
static void hk_count_nei2_core(int32_t n_pairs, struct cnt_nei2_aux *a, int r1, int r2)
{
struct cnt_nei2_aux *root = 0;
int32_t i, j, left;
unsigned cl;
left = 0;
kavl_insert(nei2, &root, &a[0], 0);
...
Looking at the Klib library (more specifically, in kavl.h), this function (I think) is defined as follows:
#define __KAVL_INSERT(suf, __scope, __type, __head, __cmp) \
__scope __type *kavl_insert_##suf(__type **root_, __type *x, unsigned *cnt_) { \
Later on in the kavl.h file there is this standalone line (line 322):
#define kavl_insert(suf, proot, x, cnt) kavl_insert_##suf(proot, x, cnt)
I don't have much technical knowledge with C (just learned parts as they were relevant), and I'm wondering how this works. The casing is different, and there is the "__" precursor in the #define line. How does this work?
The first __KAVL_INSERT macro is used to declare functions which all start with the same prefix (kavl_insert_) and end with the specified suffix (parameter suf).
So, when you see this:
__KAVL_INSERT(foo, static, int, null, null)
preprocessor will replace it with a function with the appropriate name, scope, and parameter types:
static int *kavl_insert_foo(int **root_, int *x, unsigned *cnt_) { \
/* actual function body ... */ \
/* with lots of trailing backshashes ... */ \
/* because it's the only way to create ... */ \
/* a multiline macro in C */ \
}
The lowercase kavl_insert macro, on the other hand:
kavl_insert(foo, &something, &whatever, 0);
simply expands to the actual function call, i.e. it's equivalent to calling the function defined above:
kavl_insert_foo(&something, &whatever, 0);
The idea behind this kind of macros is usually to create a generic type-safe data structure in C, using the preprocessor, like the klib library of various generic data structures.

Multiple definition of function in the same place

I am trying to simulate generics in C by having some preprocessor definitions for a matrix type. Here is an excerpt of that:
#define __matrix_struct(TYPE) \
struct { \
uint32_t sz; \
TYPE **ptr; \
}
#define __matrix_t(TYPE) matrix_ ## TYPE
#define __matrix_ptr_t(TYPE) __matrix_t(TYPE) *
#define __matrix_typedef(TYPE) typedef __matrix_struct(TYPE) __matrix_t(TYPE)
#define __matrix_allocator_name(TYPE) TYPE ## _matrix_alloc
#define __matrix_allocator(TYPE) \
__matrix_ptr_t(TYPE) __matrix_allocator_name(TYPE) (uint32_t sz) { \
uint32_t i; \
__matrix_ptr_t(TYPE) m = (__matrix_ptr_t(TYPE)) malloc(sizeof(__matrix_t(TYPE))); \
m->ptr = (TYPE **) malloc(sz * sizeof(TYPE *)); \
for (i = 0; i < sz; ++i) { \
m->ptr[i] = (TYPE *) calloc(sz, sizeof(TYPE)); \
} \
return m; \
}
#define __matrix_deallocator_name(TYPE) TYPE ## _matrix_free
#define __matrix_deallocator(TYPE) \
void __matrix_deallocator_name(TYPE) (__matrix_ptr_t(TYPE) m) { \
uint32_t i; \
for (i = 0; i < m->sz; i++) { \
free(m->ptr[i]); \
} \
free(m->ptr); \
free(m); \
}
#define matrix_alloc_ptr(TYPE, SIZE) __matrix_allocator_name(TYPE) (SIZE)
#define matrix_dealloc_ptr(TYPE, PTR_NAME) __matrix_deallocator_name(TYPE) (PTR_NAME)
In another file, byte_matrix.h, I am trying to define a matrix of uint8_t values, as follows:
#include "matrix.h"
typedef uint8_t byte;
__matrix_typedef(byte);
__matrix_allocator(byte)
__matrix_deallocator(byte)
When I try to compile, I get the following errors:
CMakeFiles/tictac.dir/game/board.c.o: In function `byte_matrix_alloc':
/home/victor/dev/pc/tictac/game/../matrix/byte_matrix.h:13: multiple definition of `byte_matrix_alloc'
CMakeFiles/tictac.dir/main.c.o:/home/victor/dev/pc/tictac/game/../matrix/byte_matrix.h:13: first defined here
CMakeFiles/tictac.dir/game/board.c.o: In function `byte_matrix_free':
/home/victor/dev/pc/tictac/game/../matrix/byte_matrix.h:14: multiple definition of `byte_matrix_free'
CMakeFiles/tictac.dir/main.c.o:/home/victor/dev/pc/tictac/game/../matrix/byte_matrix.h:14: first defined here
I cannot understand why it would point to times to the same line and complain about that definition, since every header I wrote has include guards. Could you please explain this to me? Also if you know of a better approach to my problem, please let me know. Thanks.
Also I need to compile with -std=c99 if that matters in this case.
A quick fix would be to add static to your function definitions. This will create a static copy of these functions in each compilation unit which references the header. If you want the functions to be inlined every time, this is the way to go.
An alternative way to do it would be to keep function declarations in a .h file, and actual definitions in a single .c file. This approach will avoid duplication, and the compiler will not inline them (unless your linker supports link time optimization).
The reason is that you are including this header file in multiple compilation units. After the preprocessor does all the textual replacements, you end up with actual separate function definitions inside your .c files. And if you don't specify that you want them to be static, they are by default extern, which means that now the compiler doesn't know how to differentiate them if some other part of the code wants to call them.
This is what you basically do whenever you create a header file: you create a list of declarations which will be included in many compilation units, but there is always a single extern definition in a single .c file.
Another way (relative to the proposed by Groo) is to create two macros.
__matrix_allocator_declare with just prototype of function -- for h-file(s)
__matrix_allocator_define with function body -- for one (selected by you) c-file
This way requires to handle two macros and to not forget add function-body macro in some file, but (and it is more important for embedded applications on small microcontrollers) it guarantees that only one function instance will consume memory.

C MacroMagic - Struct Definition

Im looking for a solution for define a struct, where the user may enable/disable struct members as in the example (pseudo-code):
#define DEF_STRUCT_1(NAME,VAL1,VAL2) \
struct my_struct_t \
{ \
#if(NAME == TRUE) \
bool name; \
#endif \
#if(VAL1 == TRUE) \
bool val1; \
#endif \
#if(VAL2 == TRUE) \
bool val2; \
#endif \
} instance1
void main() {
DEF_STRUCT_1(TRUE,FALSE,TRUE);
instance1.name = true;
//instance1.val1 = false; // error, unavailable
instance1.val2 = false;
}
I'm not sure how useful this is, but the following should do what you ask:
#define CONDITIONAL_TRUE(code) code
#define CONDITIONAL_FALSE(code)
#define DEF_STRUCT_1(NAME,VAL1,VAL2) \
struct my_struct_t \
{ \
CONDITIONAL_##NAME(bool name;) \
CONDITIONAL_##VAL1(bool val1;) \
CONDITIONAL_##VAL2(bool val2;) \
} instance1
int main() {
DEF_STRUCT_1(TRUE,FALSE,TRUE);
instance1.name = true;
//instance1.val1 = false; // error, unavailable
instance1.val2 = false;
}
All the TRUE/FALSE parameters would have to be available at compile-time. And if you want more than one version of these parameters to be used in the same program, you should make the struct name a parameter as well.
Since you say that this is intended for a library, it isn't clear how you're planning for the library code to be able to access this struct, since it would need to know which members are available. This significantly reduces the usefulness of this method.
A more common method used by libraries is to have a config.h file, editable by the library user, with definitions such as #define USE_NAME_MEMBER 1. Then you can make a normal struct definition with #if directives:
//in mylibrary.h:
#include <mylibrary_config.h>
struct my_struct_t {
#if USE_NAME_MEMBER
bool name;
#endif
/...
};
Then you would also put #if directives around any library code that accesses the name member.
Given that the struct needs to be generated differently at compile-time, given some conditions, you will be facing the problem that all code using the struct will need to be modified accordingly. Compiler switches (#ifdef FOO .... #endif) tend to scale badly with increased complexity. If there is a large number of struct members, all the needed compiler switches will make a horrible, unmaintainable mess out of the program.
There is a well-known design pattern known as "X macros", that can be used to centralize maintenance in programs to one single place, as well as allowing compile-time iteration of all items involved. They make the code hard to read too, and therefore they are a bit of a last resort. But they are a bit of de facto standard and their ugliness doesn't scale with complexity, so they are preferred over some compiler switch madness. It goes like this:
#define INSTANCE_LIST \
/* name, type */ \
X(name, bool) \
X(val1, bool) \
X(val2, bool) \
typedef struct
{
#define X(name, type) type name;
INSTANCE_LIST
#undef X
} instance_t;
This code gets pre-processed into:
typedef struct
{
bool name;
bool val1;
bool val2;
} instance_t;
The only part that needs to be maintained is the "INSTANCE_LIST". By commenting out a line in the list, that struct member will go away. This means that all code using the struct has to be using the same list accordingly. For example, lets add code to the same example, that lists the init values of each member and then sets them:
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#define INSTANCE_LIST \
/* name, type, init */ \
X(name, bool, true) \
X(val1, bool, false) \
X(val2, bool, false) \
typedef struct
{
#define X(name, type, init) type name;
INSTANCE_LIST
#undef X
} instance_t;
int main (void)
{
instance_t inst;
#define X(name, type, init) inst.name = init;
INSTANCE_LIST
#undef X
printf("%d ", inst.name);
printf("%d ", inst.val1);
printf("%d ", inst.val2);
}
Very flexible and maintainable - you can easily add more struct members without changing any other macro than the list. But as mentioned, the down-side is that the code looks quite cryptic, especially to those who aren't used to this design pattern.

Rewrite GCC cleanup macro with nested function for Clang?

I'm trying to work through an issue on a third party library. The issue is the library uses GCC's nested functions buried in a macro, and Clang does not support nested functions and has no plans to do so (cf., Clang Bug 6378 - error: illegal storage class on function).
Here's the macro that's the pain point for me and Clang:
#define RAII_VAR(vartype, varname, initval, dtor) \
/* Prototype needed due to http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36774 */ \
auto void _dtor_ ## varname (vartype * v); \
void _dtor_ ## varname (vartype * v) { dtor(*v); } \
vartype varname __attribute__((cleanup(_dtor_ ## varname))) = (initval)
And here's how its used (from the code comments):
* void do_stuff(const char *name)
* {
* RAII_VAR(struct mything *, thing, find_mything(name), ao2_cleanup);
* if (!thing) {
* return;
* }
* if (error) {
* return;
* }
* do_stuff_with_thing(thing);
* }
The Clang User Manual states to use C++ and a lambda function to emulate. I'm not sure that's the best strategy, and a C project will likely not accept a C++ patch (they would probably tar and feather me first).
Is there a way to rewrite the macro so that's its (1) more accommodating to Clang, and (2) preserves original function semantics?
Clang doesn't support GCC nested functions, but it does support Objective C-style "blocks", even in C mode:
void f(void * d) {
void (^g)(void *) = ^(void * d){ };
g(d);
}
You need to invoke it with the clang command rather than gcc, and also (?) pass -fblocks -lBlocksRuntime to the compiler.
You can't use a block as a cleanup value directly, since it has to be a function name, so (stealing ideas from here) you need to add a layer of indirection. Define a single function to clean up void blocks, and make your RAII'd variable the block that you want to run at the end of the scope:
typedef void (^cleanup_block)(void);
static inline void do_cleanup(cleanup_block * b) { (*b)(); }
void do_stuff(const char *name) {
cleanup_block __attribute__((cleanup(do_cleanup))) __b = ^{ };
}
Because blocks form closures, you can then place the operations on your variables to cleanup directly inside that block...
void do_stuff(const char *name) {
struct mything * thing;
cleanup_block __attribute__((cleanup(do_cleanup))) __b = ^{ ao2_cleanup(thing); };
}
...and that should run at the end of the scope as before, being invoked by the cleanup on the block. Rearrange the macro and add a __LINE__ so it works with multiple declarations:
#define CAT(A, B) CAT_(A, B)
#define CAT_(A, B) A##B
#define RAII_VAR(vartype, varname, initval, dtor) \
vartype varname = (initval); \
cleanup_block __attribute__((cleanup(do_cleanup))) CAT(__b_, __LINE__) = ^{ dtor(varname); };
void do_stuff(const char *name) {
RAII_VAR(struct mything *, thing, NULL, ao2_cleanup);
...
Something like that, anyway.
I believe you can do this without using a clang-specific version, I'd try something like this (untested, may require a few extra casts):
struct __destructor_data {
void (*func)(void *);
void **data;
}
static inline __destructor(struct __destructor_data *data)
{
data->func(*data->data);
}
#define RAII_VAR(vartype, varname, initval, dtor) \
vartype varname = initval; \
__attribute((cleanup(__destructor))) \
struct __destructor_data __dd ## varname = \
{ dtor, &varname };
In our project we have a gcc-specific _auto_(dtor) macro that precedes the normal variable declaration, e.g.:
_auto_(free) char *str = strdup("hello");
In this case our macro can't add anything after the variable declaration and also doesn't know the name of the variable, so to avoid using gcc-specific nested functions I came up with the following hackish version in case this helps anyone:
static void *__autodestruct_value = NULL;
static void (*__autodestruct_dtor)(void *) = NULL;
static inline void __autodestruct_save_dtor(void **dtor)
{
__autodestruct_dtor = *dtor;
__autodestruct_dtor(__autodestruct_value);
}
static inline void __autodestruct_save_value(void *data)
{
__autodestruct_value = *(void **) data;
}
#define __AUTODESTRUCT(var, func) \
__attribute((cleanup(__autodestruct_save_dtor))) \
void *__dtor ## var = (void (*)(void *))(func); \
__attribute((cleanup(__autodestruct_save_value)))
#define _AUTODESTRUCT(var, func) \
__AUTODESTRUCT(var, func)
#define _auto_(func) \
_AUTODESTRUCT(__COUNTER__, func)
This is hackish because it depends on the order the destructors are called by the compiler being the reverse of the order of the declarations, and it has a few obvious downsides compared to the gcc-specific version but it works with both compilers.
Building on the answers above, here's my hack to allow clang to compile nested procedures written in gcc-extension style. I needed this myself to support a source-to-source translator for an Algol-like language (Imp) which makes heavy use of nested procedures.
#if defined(__clang__)
#define _np(name, args) (^name)args = ^args
#define auto
#elif defined(__GNUC__)
#define _np(name, args) name args
#else
#error Nested functions not supported
#endif
int divide(int a, int b) {
#define replace(args...) _np(replace, (args))
auto int replace(int x, int y, int z) {
#undef replace
if (x == y) return z; else return x;
};
return a / replace(b,0,1);
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
int a = 6, b = 0;
fprintf(stderr, "a / b = %d\n", divide(a, b));
return 0;
}

Can macros be used to simulate C++ templated functions?

I have a C program in which I need to create a whole family of functions which have the same signatures and bodies, and differ only in their types. What I would like to do is define a macro which generates all of those functions for me, as otherwise I will spend a long time copying and modifying the original functions. As an example, one of the functions I need to generate looks like this:
int copy_key__sint_(void *key, void **args, int argc, void **out {
if ((*out = malloc(sizeof(int))) {
return 1;
}
**((_int_ **) out) = *((_int_ *) key);
return 0;
}
The idea is that I could call a macro, GENERATE_FUNCTIONS("int", "sint") or something like this, and have it generate this function. The italicized parts are what need to be plugged in.
Is this possible?
I don't understand the example function that you are giving very well, but using macros for the task is relatively easy. Just you wouldn't give strings to the macro as arguments but tokens:
#define DECLARE_MY_COPY_FUNCTION(TYPE, SUFFIX) \
int copy_function_ ## SUFFIX(unsigned count, TYPE* arg)
#define DEFINE_MY_COPY_FUNCTION(TYPE, SUFFIX) \
int copy_function_ ## SUFFIX(unsigned count, TYPE* arg) { \
/* do something with TYPE */ \
return whatever; \
}
You may then use this to declare the functions in a header file
DECLARE_MY_COPY_FUNCTION(unsigned, toto);
DECLARE_MY_COPY_FUNCTION(double, hui);
and define them in a .c file:
DEFINE_MY_COPY_FUNCTION(unsigned, toto);
DEFINE_MY_COPY_FUNCTION(double, hui);
In this version as stated here you might get warnings on superfluous `;'. But you can get rid of them by adding dummy declarations in the macros like this
#define DEFINE_MY_COPY_FUNCTION(TYPE, SUFFIX) \
int copy_function_ ## SUFFIX(unsigned count, TYPE* arg) { \
/* do something with TYPE */ \
return whatever; \
} \
enum { dummy_enum_for_copy_function_ ## SUFFIX }
Try something like this (I just tested the compilation, but not the result in an executed program):
#include "memory.h"
#define COPY_KEY(type, name) \
type name(void *key, void **args, int argc, void **out) { \
if (*out = malloc(sizeof(type))) { \
return 1; \
} \
**((type **) out) = *((type *) key); \
return 0; \
} \
COPY_KEY(int, copy_key_sint)
For more on the subject of generic programming in C, read this blog wich contains a few examples and also this book which contains interesting solutions to the problem for basic data structures and algorithm.
That should work. To create copy_key_sint, use copy_key_ ## sint.
If you can't get this to work with CPP, then write a small C program which generates a C source file.
Wouldn't a macro which just takes sizeof(*key) and calls a single function that uses memcpy be a lot cleaner (less preprocessor abuse and code bloat) than making a new function for each type just so it can do a native assignment rather than memcpy?
My view is that the whole problem is your attempt to apply C++ thinking to C. C has memcpy for a very good reason.

Resources