I am trying to implement the standard xor swap algorithm as a C macro.
I have two versions of the macro. One that doesn't worry about the types and one that attempts to cast everything to an integer.
Here are the macro's
#define XOR_SWAP(a,b) ((a)^=(b),(b)^=(a),(a)^=(b))
#define LVALUE_CAST(type,value) (*((type)*)&(value))
#define XOR_CAST_SWAP(type,a,b) (LVALUE_CAST((type),(a))=(type)(a)^(type)(b),LVALUE_CAST((type),(b))=(type)(b)^(type)(a),LVALUE_CAST((type),(a))=(type)(a)^(type)(b))
I know it's a pain to read the one with a cast, but your efforts are appreciated.
The error that I'm getting is:
some_file.c(260,3): expected expression before ')' token
Now, I'm looking at it but I still can't figure out where my problem lies.
I've even used the -save-temps option to capture the preprocessor output and the line looks like this:
((*(((intptr_t))*)&((Block1)))=(intptr_t)(Block1)^(intptr_t)(Block2),(*(((intptr_t))*)&((Block2)))=(intptr_t)(Block2)^(intptr_t)(Block1),(*(((intptr_t))*)&((Block1)))=(intptr_t)(Block1)^(intptr_t)(Block2));
Before anybody mentions it, I've since realized that I should probably make this a function instead of a macro. Or even better, just use that extra variable to do the swap, it isn't hard.
But I want to know why this macro doesn't work. The brackets seem to match exactly as I wanted them to, so why is it complaining?
The LVALUE_CAST is something I took from #Jens Gustedt's answer in this SO question.
Update:
The macro call that produces that preprocessor output looks like this:
XOR_CAST_SWAP(intptr_t, Block1, Block2);
I don't believe you can wrap types in arbitrary levels of parentheses.* So this compiles fine:
((*(intptr_t*)&((Block1)))=(intptr_t)(Block1)^(intptr_t)(Block2),(*(intptr_t*)&((Block2)))=(intptr_t)(Block2)^(intptr_t)(Block1),(*(intptr_t*)&((Block1)))=(intptr_t)(Block1)^(intptr_t)(Block2));
* Disclaimer: this is purely empirical! I don't intend to peruse the standard to figure out what the details are...
Related
I have some experience in programming in C but I would not dare to call myself proficient.
Recently, I encountered the following macro:
#define CONST(x) (x)
I find it typically used in expressions like for instance:
double x, y;
x = CONST(2.0)*y;
Completely baffled by the point of this macro, I extensively researched the advantages/disadvantages and properties of macros but still I can not figure out what the use of this particular macro would be. Am I missing something?
As presented in the question, you are right that the macro does nothing.
This looks like some artificial structure imposed by whoever wrote that code, maybe to make it abundantly clear where the constants are, and be able to search for them? I could see the advantage in having searchable constants, but this is not the best way to achieve that goal.
It's also possible that this was part of some other macro scheme that either never got implemented or was only partially removed.
Some (old) C compilers do not support the const keyword and this macro is most probably a reminiscence of a more elaborate sequence of macros that handled different compilers. Used like in x = CONST(2.0)*y; though makes no sense.
You can check this section from the Autoconf documentation for more details.
EDIT: Another purpose of this macro might be custom preprocessing (for extracting and/or replacing certain constants for example), like Qt Framework's Meta Object Compiler does.
There is absolutely no benefit of that macro and whoever wrote it must be confused. The code is completely equivalent to x = 2.0*y;.
Well this kind of macro could actually be usefull when there is a need to workaround the macro expansion.
A typical example of such need is the stringification macro. Refer to the following question for an example : C Preprocessor, Stringify the result of a macro
Now in your specific case, I don't see the benefit appart from extreme documention or code parsing purposes.
Another use could be to reserve those values as future function invocations, something like this:
/* #define CONST(x) (x) */
#define CONST(x) some_function(x)
// ...
double x, y;
x = CONST(2.0)*y; // x = some_function(2.0)*y;
Another good thing about this macro would be something like this
result=CONST(number+number)*2;
or something related to comparisons
result=CONST(number>0)*2;
If there is some problem with this macro, it is probably the name. This "CONST" thing isn't related with constants but with some other thing. It would be nice to look for the rest of the code to know why the author called it CONST.
This macro does have the effect of wrapping parenthesis around x during the macro expansion.
I'm guessing someone is trying to allow for something along the lines of
CONST(3+2)*y
which, without the parens, would become
3+2*y
but with the parens becomes
(3+2)*y
I seem to recall that we had the need for something like this in a previous development lifetime.
gcc 4.4.1
I am maintaining someone's code and I have come across something that I don't understand.
#define RES_API(name, func) name##_##func
Can anyone explain?
Many thanks,
The ## is a concatenation operator. Using RES_API(name1, func1) in your code would be replaced with name1_func1. More information here.
The ## operator concatenates two tokens. In your case, name is appended with an underscore, and that is appended with func.
So RES_API(aName, aFunc) results in aName_aFunc.
By itself, it seems rather annoying. I could see a use when mixing C and C++ code, as C libraries tend to prefix their functions, while C++ libraries would place them in a namespace.
Given an alternate definition, such as:
#define RES_API(name, func) name##::##func
You suddenly have a generic way to switch between a C interface, or C++.
I know you've already got your answer, but there is some great info on the C-FAQ which explains allot of the C Preprocessor magic.
Instead of doing OBJ_DoSomething, with this macro you can do RES_API(OBJ, DoSomething). Personally I think its silly.
In a previous question what I thought was a good answer was voted down for the suggested use of macros
#define radian2degree(a) (a * 57.295779513082)
#define degree2radian(a) (a * 0.017453292519)
instead of inline functions. Please excuse the newbie question, but what is so evil about macros in this case?
Most of the other answers discuss why macros are evil including how your example has a common macro use flaw. Here's Stroustrup's take: http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#macro
But your question was asking what macros are still good for. There are some things where macros are better than inline functions, and that's where you're doing things that simply can't be done with inline functions, such as:
token pasting
dealing with line numbers or such (as for creating error messages in assert())
dealing with things that aren't expressions (for example how many implementations of offsetof() use using a type name to create a cast operation)
the macro to get a count of array elements (can't do it with a function, as the array name decays to a pointer too easily)
creating 'type polymorphic' function-like things in C where templates aren't available
But with a language that has inline functions, the more common uses of macros shouldn't be necessary. I'm even reluctant to use macros when I'm dealing with a C compiler that doesn't support inline functions. And I try not to use them to create type-agnostic functions if at all possible (creating several functions with a type indicator as a part of the name instead).
I've also moved to using enums for named numeric constants instead of #define.
There's a couple of strictly evil things about macros.
They're text processing, and aren't scoped. If you #define foo 1, then any subsequent use of foo as an identifier will fail. This can lead to odd compilation errors and hard-to-find runtime bugs.
They don't take arguments in the normal sense. You can write a function that will take two int values and return the maximum, because the arguments will be evaluated once and the values used thereafter. You can't write a macro to do that, because it will evaluate at least one argument twice, and fail with something like max(x++, --y).
There's also common pitfalls. It's hard to get multiple statements right in them, and they require a lot of possibly superfluous parentheses.
In your case, you need parentheses:
#define radian2degree(a) (a * 57.295779513082)
needs to be
#define radian2degree(a) ((a) * 57.295779513082)
and you're still stepping on anybody who writes a function radian2degree in some inner scope, confident that that definition will work in its own scope.
For this specific macro, if I use it as follows:
int x=1;
x = radian2degree(x);
float y=1;
y = radian2degree(y);
there would be no type checking, and x,y will contain different values.
Furthermore, the following code
float x=1, y=2;
float z = radian2degree(x+y);
will not do what you think, since it will translate to
float z = x+y*0.017453292519;
instead of
float z = (x+y)+0.017453292519;
which is the expected result.
These are just a few examples for the misbehavior ans misuse macros might have.
Edit
you can see additional discussions about this here
if possible, always use inline function. These are typesafe and can not be easily redefined.
defines can be redfined undefined, and there is no type checking.
Macros are relatively often abused and one can easily make mistakes using them as shown by your example. Take the expression radian2degree(1 + 1):
with the macro it will expand to 1 + 1 * 57.29... = 58.29...
with a function it will be what you want it to be, namely (1 + 1) * 57.29... = ...
More generally, macros are evil because they look like functions so they trick you into using them just like functions but they have subtle rules of their own. In this case, the correct way would be to write it would be (notice the paranthesis around a):
#define radian2degree(a) ((a) * 57.295779513082)
But you should stick to inline functions. See these links from the C++ FAQ Lite for more examples of evil macros and their subtleties:
inline vs. macros
macros containing if
macros with multiple lines
macros used to paste two tokens together
The compiler's preprocessor is a finnicky thing, and therefore a terrible candidate for clever tricks. As others have pointed out, it's easy to for the compiler to misunderstand your intention with the macro, and it's easy for you to misunderstand what the macro will actually do, but most importantly, you can't step into macros in the debugger!
Macros are evil because you may end up passing more than a variable or a scalar to it and this could resolve in an unwanted behavior (define a max macro to determine max between a and b but pass a++ and b++ to the macro and see what happens).
If your function is going to be inlined anyway, there is no performance difference between a function and a macro. However, there are several usability differences between a function and a macro, all of which favor using a function.
If you build the macro correctly, there is no problem. But if you use a function, the compiler will do it correctly for you every time. So using a function makes it harder to write bad code.
I'm curious as to why I see nearly all C macros formatted like this:
#ifndef FOO
# define FOO
#endif
Or this:
#ifndef FOO
#define FOO
#endif
But never this:
#ifndef FOO
#define FOO
#endif
(moreover, vim's = operator only seems to count the first two as correct.)
Is this due to portability issues among compilers, or is it just a standard practice?
I've seen it done all three ways, it seems to be a matter of style, not of syntax
While usually the second example is the most common, i've seen cases where the first (or third) is used to help distinguish multiple levels of #ifdefs. Sometimes the logic can become deeply nested and the only way to understand it at a glance is to use indentation much like it is common practice to indent blocks of code between { and }.
IIRC, older C preprocessors required the # to be the first character on the line (though I've never actually encountered one that had this requirement).
I never seen your code like your first example. I usually wrote preprocessor directives as in your second example. I found that it visually interfered with the indentation of the actual code less (not that I write in C anymore).
The GNU C Preprocessor manual says:
Preprocessing directives are lines in
your program that start with '#'.
Whitespace is allowed before and after
the '#'.
For preference I use the third style, with the exception of include guards, for which I use the second style.
I don't like the first style at all - I think of #define as being a preprocessor instruction, even though really of course it isn't, it's a # followed by the preprocessor instruction define. But since I do think of it that way, it seems wrong to separate them. I expect text editors written by people who advocate that style will have a block indent/un-indent that works on code written in that style. But I would hate to encounter it using a text editor that didn't.
There's no point pandering to ancient preprocessors where the # has to be the first character of the line, unless you can also list off the top of your head all the other differences between those implementations and standard C, in order to avoid the other things you could possibly do that they would not support. Of course if you genuinely are working with a pre-standard compiler, fair enough.
Preprocessor directives are lines included in our programs that are not actually program statements but directives for the preprocessor. These lines are always preceded by a hash sign (#).Whitespace is allowed before and after the '#'. As soon as a newline character is found, the preprocessor directive is considered to end.
There is no other rule as far the standard of C/C++ concerned,So it remains as the matter of style and readability issue,I have seen/wrote programs only in the second way that you posted,although the third one seems more readable.
In preprocessors, we can have switch between macros like,
#define BUFF(n) BUFF_##n
So, BUFF(1) would get replaced by BUFF_1, BUFF(2) would get replaced by BUFF_2 and song
Can this be applicable to C variables? i.e., choosing between similar variables dynamically. I understand it is a weird situation and can be handled using arrays or any other constructs.. but the situation demands me such situation.. could u plz help with this.. thanks in advance
Yes, you can use that macro to apply BUFF_ to just anything. The preprocessor will expand macros and then the compiler will try to compile the result. The latter might fail, since if you use BUFF(+) you get BUFF_+ and that's not a valid variable name.
Sure, you can do this. preprocessor macros are just text replacements that are done to the code before compilation. You can't do this during runtime, though.