I have a registry for functions in my C code, and I have to provide an API to register custom functions at compile time to the registry.
Example:
The "customer" side of code should like:
int a_test_function_a(){
return 13;
}
int init(void){
add_command(a_test_function_a);
}
In my registry code I defined this macro:
#define add_command(NAME) do{ \
command_registry = avl_tree_add( \
command_registry \
, #NAME \
, &##NAME \
, &command_handler); \
} while(0)
Here is what I do not understand. The output of gcc -E replace the string like expected:
do{ command_registry = avl_tree_add( command_registry , "a_test_function_a" , &a_test_function_a , &command_handler); } while(0);
But the compiler throw a error:
src/commands/commandRegisterTest.c:18:5: error: pasting formed '&a_test_function_a', an invalid
preprocessing token
add_command(a_test_function_a);
^
src/commands/../../../src/commands/command_api.h:18:8: note: expanded from macro 'add_command'
, &##NAME \
^
1 error generated.
How can I do this, that I do not have to call add_command('name', &function); by my own. I will register the function by it's name and just call the add_command(name) thing.
Besides a solution, why is the preprocessor replace the line but fails? This doesn't make any sense for me.
Functions and function pointers are usually equivalent, i.e. you can simply omit the & ## and it'll work anyway but the preprocessor will be happy.
Anyway, you can simply remove the ## operator and it'll probably work, too. & var is fine so concatenation is not necessary.
Related
My goal is to print the filenames and not relative path to the filename. I'm experimenting with it using the macro TRACE().
Since it's all in the same file, I'm simulating the filename as an input to TRACE(). So in real life, you could say the inputs are replaced with __FILE__.
Code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#define STRINGIFY(x) #x
#define TOSTRING(x) STRINGIFY(x)
#define __FILENAME__(x) TOSTRING(strrchr(x, '\\'))
#define TRACE(s, ...) \
{ \
if (strrchr(s, '\\')) { \
static const char str[] = __FILENAME__(s) "\n\r"; \
printf(str, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
} else { \
static const char str[] = s "\n\r"; \
printf(str, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
} \
}
int main() {
TRACE("file.c");
TRACE("parent\\file.c");
return 0;
}
Output:
file.c
strrchr("parent\\file.c", '\\')
So if it's local file, it's printed as file.c, which is great. This means the ifcase in the macro is working :). But when it's a file in another folder, I fail to "stringify" the computation strrchr(s, '\\'). Why?
Furthermore, I don't see an issue with the computation in the define, since everything is defined at compile time!! (That's why the if case is working, right?)
If I remove the TOSTRING() from __FILENAME__ I get loads of errors instead. Because it fails to concatenate the output of __FILENAME__ with str[]
Is there a way to solve this?
Preliminary observations
Note that in C (as opposed to C++), you can't initialize a static const char str[] array with the result of a function call. If the strrchr() found a backslash, you probably want to print the name from one after the backslash. And the stringification isn't going to stringify the result of invoking strrchr().
Also note that you should not create function or variable names that start with an underscore, in general. C11 §7.1.3 Reserved identifiers says (in part):
All identifiers that begin with an underscore and either an uppercase letter or another underscore are always reserved for any use.
All identifiers that begin with an underscore are always reserved for use as identifiers with file scope in both the ordinary and tag name spaces.
See also What does double underscore (__const) mean in C?
Since the first argument to your TRACE macro is already a string, there's not much benefit to applying the stringification — unless you want the double quotes to appear when the name is printed.
Simple adaptation
To get more or less the result you want, you would need to accept that there'll be run-time overhead invoking strrchr() each time you pass the trace (or a more elaborate scheme for initialization), along the lines of:
#define TRACE(s, ...) \
do { \
const char *basename = strrchr(s, '\\'); \
if (basename == 0) \
basename = s; \
else \
basename++; \
printf(basename, ## __VA_ARGS__); \
} while (0)
The do { … } while (0) idiom is standard; it allows you to write:
if (something)
TRACE("hocuspocus.c: test passed\n");
else
TRACE("abracadabra.c: test failed\n");
If you use the braces-only notation in the question, the semicolon after the first TRACE makes the else into a syntax error. See also C #define macro for debug printing and Why use apparently meaningles do { … } while (0) and if … else statements in macros? and do { … } while (0) — what is it good for?
The ## __VA_ARGS__ trick is fine as long as you know that it is a GCC (and Clang because it is compatible with GCC) extension, and not a part of standard C.
It also isn't entirely clear how you plan to use the variable arguments. It looks as though you'd be able to do:
TRACE("some\\kibbitzer.c: value %d is out of the range [%d..%d]\n",
value, MIN_RANGE, MAX_RANGE);
where the file name is embedded in the format string. Maybe you have in mind:
TRACE(__FILE__ ": value %d is out of the range [%d..%d]\n",
value, MIN_RANGE, MAX_RANGE);
That can work; __FILE__ is a string literal, unlike __func__ which is a predefined identifier (static const char __func__[] = "…function name…";).
Finally (for now), consider whether trace output should go to standard output or to standard error. It is easily arguable it should go to standard error; it (probably) isn't part of the regular output of the program.
I recommend looking at the 'debug macro' question and answer — but I am biassed since I wrote the top-scoring answer.
Reducing runtime overhead
You can reduce the runtime overhead to a single call to strrchr() per file name, as long as you aren't messing with automatic variables etc. You'll be OK if you're using string literals.
#define TRACE(s, ...) \
do { \
static const char *basename = 0;
if (basename == 0) \
{
if ((basename = strrchr(s, '\\')) == 0) \
basename = s; \
else \
basename++; \
} \
printf(basename, ## __VA_ARGS__); \
} while (0)
This initializes the basename to null; on the first pass through the code, basename is set to the correct position in the string; thereafter, there is no further call to strrchr().
Warning: the code shown has not been compiled.
I think there is some issue with the understanding of how macros and functions work.
Macros are not "executed", they are just simple text substitution. Yes, that happens in the compile time (actually pre compiling), but just the substitution.
Macros won't execute and code or call any functions (like strrchr) while compiling.
In your code you have -
#define __FILENAME__(x) TOSTRING(strrchr(x, '\\'))
Whenever __FILENAME__(foo) is used, it is replaced with "strrchr(foo, '\\')". I am sure this is not what you want.
Personally, I don't see any reason for using macros here. Just make it into a normal function. The compiler will optimize it for you.
Is there a general method to shield comments in macro arguments in C? I know that parentheses can be used for this purpose, but that will not work in cases where added parentheses result in syntax errors in the macro output. I've heard that ({ }) works to shield commas in GCC, but I need this code to also work in VC++ (one of the recent versions which does conform to the C standard with regard to commas in macros). I also cannot use variadic macros in my case.
The specific case I'm trying to do is this (lengthof is a macro defined elsewhere). I'm trying to write a single macro for the entire thing because this will be used many times, and having a multi-macro solution would add a large amount of additional testing code.
#define TEST_UNFUNC(func, res_type, res_set, op_type, op_set) \
{ \
static const res_type res[] = res_set; \
static const op_type op[] = op_set; \
int i; \
for (i = 0; i < MIN(lengthof(res), lengthof(op)); i++) \
assert(func(op[i]) == res[i]); \
}
If possible I would like a general answer and not merely a workaround specific to this particular macro.
Use parentheses to shield the comma, and then pass them through a special unparen macro, defined in the example below:
#include <stdio.h>
#define really_unparen(...) __VA_ARGS__
#define invoke(expr) expr
#define unparen(args) invoke(really_unparen args)
#define fancy_macro(a) printf("%s %s\n", unparen(a))
int main()
{
fancy_macro(("Hello", "World"));
}
The trick here is that the invoke macro forces an extra expansion, allowing really_unparen to be called even though it's not followed by parentheses in the source.
Edit: per comment below, this appears to not be necessary in this case. Though I'm sure I've hit a case where I needed it sometime ... and it doesn't hurt.
In C, we often have to run such code
if (! somefun(x, y, z)) {
perror("somefun")
}
Is it possible to create a macro which, used as follows:
#define chkerr ...
chkerr(somefun(x, y, z));
would compile to the above?
I already know I can use __VA_ARGS__ macro, but this would require me to call it like
chkerr(somefun, x, y, z)
Short variant (you spotted already):
#define chkErr(FUNCTION, ...) \
if(!FUNCTION(__VA_ARGS__)) \
{ \
perror(#FUNCTION); \
}
Be aware that this can impose big problems in nested if/else or similar constructs:
if(x)
chkErr(f, 10, 12) //;
//^ semicolon forgotten!
else
chkErr(f, 12, 10);
would compile to code equivalent to the following:
if(x)
{
if(!f(10, 12))
perror("f");
else if(!f, 12, 10))
perror("f");
}
Quite obviously not what was intended with the if/else written with the macros... So you really should prefer to let it look like a real function (requiring a semicolon):
#define chkErr(FUNCTION, ...) \
do \
{ \
if(!FUNCTION(__VA_ARGS__)) \
{ \
perror(#FUNCTION); \
} \
} \
while(0)
You would call it like this:
chkErr(someFunction, 10, 12);
In case of error, output would be:
someFunction: <error text>
However, this hides the fact that a function actually gets called, making it more difficult to understand for "outsiders". Same output, not hiding the function call, but requiring one additional comma in between function and arguments (compared to a normal function call):
#define chkErr(FUNCTION, ARGUMENTS) \
do \
{ \
if(!FUNCTION ARGUMENTS) \
{ \
perror(#FUNCTION); \
} \
} \
while(0)
chkErr(someFunction,(12, 10));
// ^ (!)
Another variant with the charm of retaining the function call would print out this entire function call:
#define chkErr(FUNCTION_CALL) \
do \
{ \
if(!FUNCTION_CALL) \
{ \
perror(#FUNCTION_CALL); \
} \
} \
while(0)
chkErr(someFunction(10, 12));
In case of error, output would be:
someFunction(10, 12): <error text>
Addendum: If you really want exactly the output as shown in the question and still have the function call retained (without comma in between), you are a little in trouble. Actually, it is possible, but it requires some extra work:
Problem is how the preprocessor operates on macro arguments: Each argument is a token. It can easily combine tokens, but cannot split them.
Leaving out any commas results in the macro accepting one single token, just as in my second variant. Sure, you can stringify it, as I did, but you get the function arguments with. This is a string literal, and as the pre-processor cannot modify string literals, you have to operate on them at runtime.
Next problem then is, though, string literals are unmodifiable. So you need to modify a copy!
The following variant would do all this work for you:
#define chkErr(FUNCTION_CALL) \
do \
{ \
if(!FUNCTION_CALL) \
{ \
char function_name[] = #FUNCTION_CALL; \
char* function_name_end = strchr(function_name, '('); \
if(function_name_end) \
*function_name_end = 0; \
perror(function_name); \
} \
} \
while(0)
Well, decide you if it is worth the effort...
By the way - whitespace between function name and opening parenthesis is not eliminated. If you want to be perfect:
unsigned char* end = (unsigned char*) function_name;
while(*end && *end != '(' && !isspace(*end))
++end;
*end = 0;
Or, much nicer (thanks chqrlie for the hint):
function_name[strcspn(function_name, "( \t")] = 0;
Anything else I can think of would require an additional pre-processing step:
#define CAT(X, Y) CAT_(X, Y)
#define CAT_(X, Y) X ## Y
#define chkErr(FUNCTION_CALL) \
do \
{ \
if(!FUNCTION_CALL) \
{ \
perror(CAT(CHK_ERR_TEXT_, __LINE__)); \
} \
} \
while 0
chkErr(function(10, 12));
Ah, huh, this would result in code like this:
if(!function(10, 12))
{
perror(CHK_ERR_TEXT_42);
}
And now, where to get these macros from? Well, the pre-processing, remember? Possibly a perl or python script, e. g. generating an additional header file you'd have to include. You would have to make sure this pre-processing is done every time before the compiler's pre-processor runs.
Well, all not impossible to solve, but I'll leave this to the masochists among us...
C11 6.4.2.2 Predefined identifiers
The identifier __func__ shall be implicitly declared by the translator as if, immediately following the opening brace of each function definition, the declaration
static const char __func__[] = "function-name";
appeared, where function-name is the name of the lexically-enclosing function.
You can used it this way:
#define chkErr(exp) do { if (!(exp)) perror(__func__); } while (0)
chkerr(somefun(x, y, z));
Unfortunately, this would produce an error message with the name of the calling function, not somefun. Here is a simple variant that should work and even produce more informative error messages:
#define chkErr(exp) do { if (!(exp)) perror(#exp); } while (0)
chkerr(somefun(x, y, z));
In case somefun(x, y, z) returns a non zero value, the error message will contain the string "somefun(x, y, z)".
You can combine both techniques to give both the offending call and the location:
#include <errno.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#define chkErr(exp) \
do { if (!(exp)) \
fprintf(stderr, "%s:%d: in function %s, %s failed: %s\n",\
__FILE__, __LINE__, __func__, #exp, strerror(errno)); \
} while (0)
chkerr(somefun(x, y, z));
This assumes somefun() returns 0 or NULL in case of error and set errno accordingly. Note however that most system calls return non zero in case of error.
You can use the original call format:
chkerr(somefun(x, y, z));
With a macro and a helper function:
#define chkerr(fcall) \
if (!fcall) { \
perror(extract_fname(#fcall)); \
}
const char *extract_fname(const char *fcall);
The extract_fname function would get text and return everything until the open parenthesis.
Yes it is possible with an ugly, unsafe variadic macro:
#define chkerr(func, ...) \
if(!func(__VA_ARGS__)) \
{ \
perror(#func); \
}
...
chkerr(somefunc, 1, 2, 3);
But it is a very bad idea.
Call for sanity:
If there was just the original code with the plain if statement, the reader would think "Here they call a function and do some basic error control. Okay, basic stuff. Moving on...". But after the changes, anyone who reads the code will instead freeze and think "WTF is this???".
You can never write a macro that is clearer than the if statement - which makes the if statement superior to the macro.
Some rules to follow:
Function-like macros are dangerous and unreadable. They should only be used as the very last resort.
Avoid inventing your own secret macro language with function-like macros. C programmers who read your code know C. They don't know your secret macro language.
"To avoid typing" is often a poor rationale for program design decisions. Avoiding code repetition is a good rationale, but taking it to the extremes will affect code readability. If you avoid code repetition and make the code more readable at the same time, it is a good thing. If you do it but the code turns less readable, it is hard to justify.
It's not possible to extract just the function name. The C processor sees the literals you pass as single tokens, which can't be manipulated. Your only options are to print the function with arguments like Aconcague suggests or pass the name as a separate parameter:
#define chkErr(FUNCTION_NAME, FUNCTION_CALL) \
if(!FUNCTION_CALL) \
{ \
perror(#FUNCTION_NAME); \
}
chkErr(someFunction, someFunction(10, 12));
This piece of code reports three misra c errors:
Inappropriate macro expansion
Function-like macro definition
Macro parameter with no parentheses
The original code is:
#define Wait(a, b) \
if (READ(b+0x1U)) \
{ \
while ((a & Write(b))) \
{ \
/* Do nothing - Busy wait */ \
} \
}
Here READ(b) is a macro and Write(b) is a function with no Misra C error.
I have trying changing it to remove errors
#define Wait(a, b) \
if ((uint32_t)0U != READ((b)+0x1U)) \
{ \
while ((uint32_t)0U != ((uint32_t)(a) & Write((uint32_t)(b)))) \
{ \
/* Do nothing - Busy wait */ \
} \
}
But i am still getting the first two errors. What needs to be done to remove these Misra C errors.
1.Inappropriate macro expansion
This is because you haven't encapsulated your macro properly. To fix this, you must change the code to:
#define Wait(a, b) \
\
do { \
if (READ(b+0x1U)) \
{ \
while ((a & Write(b))) \
{ \
/* Do nothing - Busy wait */ \
} \
} \
} while (0);
(But of course, this is pointless exercise if the rest of your code follows MISRA-C and always use {} after every if, for or while statement.)
2.Function-like macro definition
You are using a function-like macro. This isn't allowed by MISRA-C. Rewrite the macro as a function.
However, rule 19.7 is advisory, so you could in theory ignore it without raising a deviation. But there is no reason to do so in this case. There exists no reason why this need to be a macro and not a function.
3.Macro parameter with no parentheses
As you guessed, this has to do with every macro parameter being a potential sub-expression. Suppose someone calls your macro as Wait(x+y, z). Your code will then crash and burn upon encountering the while loop, because the macro will expand into while(x+y & Write(b)), which is the same thing as while(x + (y & Write(b)) ).
To solve this, surround every instance of a and b with parenthesis, as in your second example.
This piece of code reports three misra c errors:
You should report a bug to Klockwork, their tool is not working correctly. It should also have detected the following:
if (READ(b+0x1U)) violates rules 13.2. MISRA compliant code would be
if (READ(b+0x1U) != 0u)
while ((a & Write(b))) violates rule 13.2. MISRA compliant code would be
while ( (a & Write(b)) != 0u )
Non-MISRA related concerns:
(uint32_t)0U should preferably be written as 0UL or 0ul, which are more readable forms.
Frankly, this code was bad to begin with. Trying to make it MISRA-compliant as it stands, will turn it into a completely unreadable mess. Rewrite it from scratch instead:
void Wait (uint32_t a, uint32 b)
{
if( READ(b + 0x1u) != 0u ) /* comment here, explaining the code */
{
while ( (a & Write(b)) != 0u ) /* comment here, explaining the code */
{
; /* Do nothing - busy wait */
}
}
}
There's a list of things macros are allowed to expand to, and an if block isn't one of them. I believe this is because it can cause confusion about the attachment of else clauses. More about that here. You can use this construct:
#define MACRO(X) \
do { \
body here \
} while (0)
You should use a function instead of a function-like macro whenever you can. Without knowing what READ expands to I can't say if that's possible in this case. That would be the only way to get rid of the warning about that.
The third one you already figured out; you have to put parentheses around a and b in the body. The idea here is that if you have code like x*2 in the macro and someone passes 3+1 as x, without the parenthesis you'd get 3+1*2, which is 5, instead of (3+1)*2, which is the 8 which was almost certainly intended.
The only other thing I would have to say about your code is are you sure you want & there and not &&?
I have a bunch of generated functions from a supplier's tool are required to be defined by me.
Since the inner functionality of each and every one of these functions are exactly the same, I figured I could use a macro to make my life easier.
Here is the offending warning:
pasting "<function_name>" and "(" does not give a valid preprocessing token
Now, I define my macro as follows:
#define HANDLE_FUNCTION(x) \
void <function_prefix>_ ## x ## (void) \
{ \
x ## _Flag = TRUE; \
}
In my code I then write:
HANDLE_FUNCTION(fn1)
HANDLE_FUNCTION(fn2)
...and so on
Any thoughts on why this occurs?
Remove the second ##, it has no use (you don't want to make one symbol of function_name().