I would like to define a macro that will help me to auto generate offsets. Something like this:
#define MEM_OFFSET(name, size) ...
MEM_OFFSET(param1, 1);
MEM_OFFSET(param2, 2);
MEM_OFFSET(param3, 4);
MEM_OFFSET(param4, 1);
should generate the following code:
const int param1_offset = 0;
const int param2_offset = 1;
const int param3_offset = 3;
const int param4_offset = 7;
or
enum {
param1_offset = 0,
param2_offset = 1,
param3_offset = 3,
param4_offset = 7,
}
or even (not possible using C-preprocessor only for sure, but who knows ;)
#define param1_offset 0
#define param2_offset 1
#define param3_offset 3
#define param4_offset 7
Is it possible to do without running external awk/bash/... scripts?
I'm using Keil C51
It seems I've found a solution with enum:
#define MEM_OFFSET(name, size) \
name ## _offset, \
___tmp__ ## name = name ## _offset + size - 1, // allocate right bound offset and introduce a gap to force compiler to use next available offset
enum {
MEM_OFFSET(param1, 1)
MEM_OFFSET(param2, 2)
MEM_OFFSET(param3, 4)
MEM_OFFSET(param4, 1)
};
In the comments to your post you mention that you're managing an EEPROM memory map, so this answer relates to managing memory offsets rather than answering your specific question.
One way to manage EEPROM memory is with the use of a packed struct. ie, one where there is no space between each of the elements. The struct is never instantiated, it is only used for offset calculations.
typedef struct {
uint8_t param1;
#ifdef FEATURE_ENABLED
uint16_t param2;
#endif
uint8_t param3;
} __packed eeprom_memory_layout_t;
You could then use code like the following to determine the offset of each element as needed(untested). This uses the offsetof stddef macro.
uint16_t read_param3(void) {
uint8_t buf;
eeprom_memory_layout_t * ee;
/* eeprom_read(offset, size, buf) */
eeprom_read(offsetof(eeprom_memory_layout_t, param3), sizeof(ee->param3), &buf);
return buf;
}
Note that the struct is never instantiated. Using a struct like this makes it easy to see your memory map at a glance, and macros can easily be used to abstract away the calls to offsetof and sizeof during access.
If you want to create several structures based on some preprocessor declarations, you could do something like:
#define OFFSET_FOREACH(MODIFIER) \
MODIFIER(1) \
MODIFIER(2) \
MODIFIER(3) \
MODIFIER(4)
#define OFFSET_MODIFIER_ENUM(NUM) param##NUM##_offset,
enum
{
OFFSET_FOREACH(OFFSET_MODIFIER_ENUM)
};
The preprocessor would then produce the following code:
enum
{
param1_offset,
param2_offset,
param3_offset,
param4_offset,
}
I'm sure somebody will figure a nice preprocessor trick to compute the offset values with the sum of its predecessors :)
If you are doing this in C code, you have to keep in mind that const int declarations do not declare constants in C. To declare a named constant you have to use either enum or #define.
If you need int constants specifically, then enum will work well, although I the auto-generation part might be tricky in any case. Off the top of my head I can only come up with something as ugly as
#define MEM_OFFSET_BEGIN(name, size)\
enum {\
name##_OFFSET = 0,\
name##_SIZE__ = size,
#define MEM_OFFSET(name, size, prev_name)\
name##_OFFSET = prev_name##_OFFSET + prev_name##_SIZE__,\
name##_SIZE__ = size,
#define MEM_OFFSET_END()\
};
and then
MEM_OFFSET_BEGIN(param1, 1)
MEM_OFFSET(param2, 2, param1)
MEM_OFFSET(param3, 4, param2)
MEM_OFFSET(param4, 1, param3)
MEM_OFFSET_END()
Needless to say, the fact that it requires the next offset declaration to refer to the previous offset declaration by name defeats most of the purpose of this construct.
Try something like:
#define OFFSET(x) offsetof(struct {\
char param1[1], param2[2], param3[4], param4[1];\
},x)
Then you can use OFFSET(param1), etc. and it's even an integer constant expression.
Related
I have these lines in my code and was thinking that there may be some nice way to use preprocessor to generate these lines (0 through 31).
Mem_type MEM_0[MAX_NUM_MEM];
Mem_type MEM_1[MAX_NUM_MEM];
Mem_type MEM_2[MAX_NUM_MEM];
Mem_type MEM_3[MAX_NUM_MEM];
Mem_type MEM_4[MAX_NUM_MEM];
Mem_type MEM_5[MAX_NUM_MEM];
...
Mem_type MEM_30[MAX_NUM_MEM];
Mem_type MEM_31[MAX_NUM_MEM];
Mem_type *MEM[NUM_BANKS];
MEM[0] = MEM_0;
MEM[1] = MEM_1;
MEM[2] = MEM_2;
MEM[3] = MEM_3;
MEM[4] = MEM_4;
MEM[5] = MEM_5;
...
MEM[30] = MEM_30;
MEM[31] = MEM_31;
For example, something like:
#define Gen(n) MEM[n] = MEM_n
#for (k=0; k<32; k++) Gen(k);
(The reason why I don't do like the below is that I found that my machine has some maximum contiguous array size limit, so I tried to split it into separate arrays so that I can have larger aggregated MEM size.)
Mem_type MEM[NUM_BANKS][MAX_NUM_MEM];
Using boost/preprocessor/repetition/repeat.hpp :
#include <boost/preprocessor/repetition/repeat.hpp>
class Mem_type {};
#define MAX_NUM_MEM 5
#define NUM_BANKS 5
#define MEM_DECL(z, n, text) Mem_type MEM_## n[MAX_NUM_MEM];
#define MEM_MEMB(z, n, text) MEM_## n,
// expands to `Mem_type MEM_?[MAX_NUM_MEM];`
BOOST_PP_REPEAT(NUM_BANKS, MEM_DECL, ())
Mem_type *MEM[NUM_BANKS] = {
// expands to `MEM_?,`
BOOST_PP_REPEAT(NUM_BANKS, MEM_MEMB, ())
};
There are articles on the net about symbolic computations on preprocessing stage, one typical instance would be http://jhnet.co.uk/articles/cpp_magic
If the machinery defined there is too much for you and you don't care much about the prettiness of generated code you could use a cheap alternative, something like (untested):
#define ONE_MEM(i, a) MemType mem_ ## a[MAX_MEM]; mem[i] = mem_ ## a
#define MEM_1(i, a) ONE_MEM(i, a); ONE_MEM(i + 1, a ## 1)
#define MEM_2(i, a) MEM_1(i, a); MEM_1(i + 2, a##2)
#define MEM_4(i, a) MEM_2(i, a); MEM_2(i + 4, a##4)
and so forth, now it's logarithmic in amount of macros defined.
(Haven't tested it, the actual definition might need a concat indirection or two.)
There can be improvements, like declaring a macro parameter to substitute for mem etc.
The stack is very limited and should not be used to allocate huge data structures like this as discussed here. Instead try to allocate your memory using new[]. If you do need multidimensional arrays you can use an array of pointers that point to arrays pointing to your structures as described here.
However as your initial intention was to have a single array, this should do the trick without the need of the preprocessor:
Mem_type* MEM = new Mem_type[MAX_NUM_MEM]; // MAX_NUM_MEM is multiplied by NUM_BANKS here
// do things [...]
delete[] MEM;
MEM = nullptr;
It would be an idea to wrap this up in a class, allocate in the constructor, throw an exception if allocation fails and deallocate in the destructor.
Using dynamic allocation with STL vectors:
#include <vector>
class Mem_type {};
const int MAX_NUM_MEM = 5;
const int NUM_BANKS = 5;
// allocates NUM_BANKS vectors with MAX_NUM_MEM objects of Mem_type
std::vector<std::vector<Mem_type>> MEM(NUM_BANKS, std::vector<Mem_type>(MAX_NUM_MEM));
You can use an X Macro along with token concatenating
#define LIST_OF_MEMS \
X(0) \
X(1) \
X(2) \
X(3) \
X(4) \
X(5) \
... \
X(30) \
X(31) \
Now you can use it every time you want to do anything with all the MEMs. Note that using all caps for a variable name is a bad idea
// declaration
#define X(num) Mem_type mem_##num[MAX_NUM_MEM];
LIST_OF_MEMS
#undef X
// assignment
#define X(num) MEM[num] = mem_##num;
LIST_OF_MEMS
#undef X
I'm working on an embedded project and I have all the ports and pins defined like this:
#define SENSOR_1 gpioPortA,15
Is there a way to extract just the integer without creating a new #define?
So far I used a typedef and assigned the pin value from the #define like so:
typedef struct
{
GPIO_Port_TypeDef port;
uint8_t pin;
}sensor_t;
sensor_t sensor1 = {SENSOR_1};
/* Now sensor1.pin is the pin value */
but I want to pass the pin to a switch case and I can only use constant values for that and I'd rather avoid using an if statement.
Is there a way to pass the pin to a switch case without a new #define?
Short answer is no.
You could however use sensor1.pin when needed but not in case of switch statement as switch does not support variables there. In this case use if-else statement.
Or do it like this:
#define SENSOR_1_PIN 10
#define SENSOR_1 my_port,SENSOR_1_PIN
and then in switch you use SENSOR_1_PIN in case part.
switch (condition) {
case SENSOR_1_PIN:
//Do stuff
break;
//....
}
Just to remind again as it was posted in first comment on your question. Doing that is very dangerous.
Most proper way would be to do it like this:
#define SENSOR_1_PORT GPIOB
#define SENSOR_1_PIN 15
//If structure order changes here, you may lead to wrong data interpretation
sensor_t sensor1 = {SENSOR_1_PORT, SENSOR_1_PIN};
If you are C99 compliant, you may do it even more safer like this:
//If structure order changes here, your data are still properly assigned to fields
sensor_t sensor1 = {.port = SENSOR_1_PORT, .pin = SENSOR_1_PIN};
You can define a macro to extract the value from your definition.
#define GET_SECOND(x, y) y
#define PIN_VALUE(x) GET_SECOND(x)
switch (pin) {
case PIN_VALUE(SENSOR_1):
/* ... */
break;
}
PIN_VALUE must allow SENSOR_1 to be expanded via helper macro so that the second part can be extracted.
The proper solution at this point is to re-design the definitions into something that makes more sense, or alternatively create new constants.
As a last resort, if you are stuck with these macros, you can parse them in the following way:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
typedef int GPIO_Port_TypeDef; // whatever type this happens to be
typedef struct
{
GPIO_Port_TypeDef port;
uint8_t pin;
}sensor_t;
#define GET_FIELD(field,...) (sensor_t){__VA_ARGS__}.field
#define SENSOR_1 gpioPortA,15
int main (void)
{
int gpioPortA = 1;
printf("%d %d", GET_FIELD(port, SENSOR_1), GET_FIELD(pin, SENSOR_1));
}
The type-generic version would be:
#define GET_FIELD(type, field, ...) (type){__VA_ARGS__}.field
...
printf("%d %d", GET_FIELD(sensor_t, port, SENSOR_1), GET_FIELD(sensor_t, pin, SENSOR_1));
This scales variably no matter how many fields there are. This is however not recommended practice. Macros in general, and variadic macros in particular, should be avoided.
As for how to use run-time variables in case - you can't. Use an if-else if statement instead.
What about inserting a define inside a define ? Instead of directly adding 15, you could make a define holding 15 and insert it elsewhere.
E.g:
#define SENSORVAL 15
#define SENSOR_1 gpioPortA,SENSORVAL
typedef struct
{
GPIO_Port_TypeDef port;
uint8_t pin;
}sensor_t;
sensor_t sensor1 = {SENSOR_1};
/* Now sensor1.pin is the pin value */
Is there a compile-time way to detect / prevent duplicate values within a C/C++ enumeration?
The catch is that there are multiple items which are initialized to explicit values.
Background:
I've inherited some C code such as the following:
#define BASE1_VAL (5)
#define BASE2_VAL (7)
typedef enum
{
MsgFoo1A = BASE1_VAL, // 5
MsgFoo1B, // 6
MsgFoo1C, // 7
MsgFoo1D, // 8
MsgFoo1E, // 9
MsgFoo2A = BASE2_VAL, // Uh oh! 7 again...
MsgFoo2B // Uh oh! 8 again...
} FOO;
The problem is that as the code grows & as developers add more messages to the MsgFoo1x group, eventually it overruns BASE2_VAL.
This code will eventually be migrated to C++, so if there is a C++-only solution (template magic?), that's OK -- but a solution that works with C and C++ is better.
There are a couple ways to check this compile time, but they might not always work for you. Start by inserting a "marker" enum value right before MsgFoo2A.
typedef enum
{
MsgFoo1A = BASE1_VAL,
MsgFoo1B,
MsgFoo1C,
MsgFoo1D,
MsgFoo1E,
MARKER_1_DONT_USE, /* Don't use this value, but leave it here. */
MsgFoo2A = BASE2_VAL,
MsgFoo2B
} FOO;
Now we need a way to ensure that MARKER_1_DONT_USE < BASE2_VAL at compile-time. There are two common techiques.
Negative size arrays
It is an error to declare an array with negative size. This looks a little ugly, but it works.
extern int IGNORE_ENUM_CHECK[MARKER_1_DONT_USE > BASE2_VAL ? -1 : 1];
Almost every compiler ever written will generate an error if MARKER_1_DONT_USE is greater than BASE_2_VAL. GCC spits out:
test.c:16: error: size of array ‘IGNORE_ENUM_CHECK’ is negative
Static assertions
If your compiler supports C11, you can use _Static_assert. Support for C11 is not ubiquitous, but your compiler may support _Static_assert anyway, especially since the corresponding feature in C++ is widely supported.
_Static_assert(MARKER_1_DONT_USE < BASE2_VAL, "Enum values overlap.");
GCC spits out the following message:
test.c:16:1: error: static assertion failed: "Enum values overlap."
_Static_assert(MARKER_1_DONT_USE < BASE2_VAL, "Enum values overlap.");
^
I didn't see "pretty" in your requirements, so I submit this solution implemented using the Boost Preprocessor library.
As an up-front disclaimer, I haven't used Boost.Preprocessor a whole lot and I've only tested this with the test cases presented here, so there could be bugs, and there may be an easier, cleaner way to do this. I certainly welcome comments, corrections, suggestions, insults, etc.
Here we go:
#include <boost/preprocessor.hpp>
#define EXPAND_ENUM_VALUE(r, data, i, elem) \
BOOST_PP_SEQ_ELEM(0, elem) \
BOOST_PP_IIF( \
BOOST_PP_EQUAL(BOOST_PP_SEQ_SIZE(elem), 2), \
= BOOST_PP_SEQ_ELEM(1, elem), \
BOOST_PP_EMPTY()) \
BOOST_PP_COMMA_IF(BOOST_PP_NOT_EQUAL(data, BOOST_PP_ADD(i, 1)))
#define ADD_CASE_FOR_ENUM_VALUE(r, data, elem) \
case BOOST_PP_SEQ_ELEM(0, elem) : break;
#define DEFINE_UNIQUE_ENUM(name, values) \
enum name \
{ \
BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(EXPAND_ENUM_VALUE, \
BOOST_PP_SEQ_SIZE(values), values) \
}; \
\
namespace detail \
{ \
void UniqueEnumSanityCheck##name() \
{ \
switch (name()) \
{ \
BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH(ADD_CASE_FOR_ENUM_VALUE, name, values) \
} \
} \
}
We can then use it like so:
DEFINE_UNIQUE_ENUM(DayOfWeek, ((Monday) (1))
((Tuesday) (2))
((Wednesday) )
((Thursday) (4)))
The enumerator value is optional; this code generates an enumeration equivalent to:
enum DayOfWeek
{
Monday = 1,
Tuesday = 2,
Wednesday,
Thursday = 4
};
It also generates a sanity-check function that contains a switch statement as described in Ben Voigt's answer. If we change the enumeration declaration such that we have non-unique enumerator values, e.g.,
DEFINE_UNIQUE_ENUM(DayOfWeek, ((Monday) (1))
((Tuesday) (2))
((Wednesday) )
((Thursday) (1)))
it will not compile (Visual C++ reports the expected error C2196: case value '1' already used).
Thanks also to Matthieu M., whose answer to another question got me interested in the Boost Preprocessor library.
I don't believe there's a way to detect this with the language itself, considering there are conceivable cases where you'd want two enumeration values to be the same. You can, however, always ensure all explicitly set items are at the top of the list:
typedef enum
{
MsgFoo1A = BASE1_VAL, // 5
MsgFoo2A = BASE2_VAL, // 7
MsgFoo1B, // 8
MsgFoo1C, // 9
MsgFoo1D, // 10
MsgFoo1E, // 11
MsgFoo2B // 12
} FOO;
So long as assigned values are at the top, no collision is possible, unless for some reason the macros expand to values which are the same.
Usually this problem is overcome by giving a fixed number of bits for each MsgFooX group, and ensuring each group does not overflow it's allotted number of bits. The "Number of bits" solution is nice because it allows a bitwise test to determine to which message group something belongs. But there's no built-in language feature to do this because there are legitimate cases for an enum having two of the same value:
typedef enum
{
gray = 4, //Gr[ae]y should be the same
grey = 4,
color = 5, //Also makes sense in some cases
couleur = 5
} FOO;
I don't know of anything that will automatically check all enum members, but if you want to check that future changes to the initializers (or the macros they rely on) don't cause collisions:
switch (0) {
case MsgFoo1A: break;
case MsgFoo1B: break;
case MsgFoo1C: break;
case MsgFoo1D: break;
case MsgFoo1E: break;
case MsgFoo2A: break;
case MsgFoo2B: break;
}
will cause a compiler error if any of the integral values is reused, and most compilers will even tell you what value (the numeric value) was a problem.
You could roll a more robust solution of defining enums using Boost.Preprocessor - wether its worth the time is a different matter.
If you are moving to C++ anyway, maybe the (proposed) Boost.Enum suits you (available via the Boost Vault).
Another approach might be to use something like gccxml (or more comfortably pygccxml) to identify candidates for manual inspection.
While we do not have full on reflection, you can solve this problem if you can relist the enumeration values.
Somewhere this is declared:
enum E { A = 0, B = 0 };
elsewhere, we build this machinery:
template<typename S, S s0, S... s>
struct first_not_same_as_rest : std::true_type {};
template<typename S, S s0, S s1, S... s>
struct first_not_same_as_rest : std::integral_constant< bool,
(s0 != s1) && first_not_same_as_rest< S, s0, s... >::value
> {};
template<typename S, S... s>
struct is_distinct : std::true_type {};
template<typename S, S s0, S... s>
struct is_distinct : std::integral_constant< bool,
std::is_distinct<S, s...>::value &&
first_not_same_as_rest< S, s0, s... >::value
> {};
Once you have that machinery (which requires C++11), we can do the following:
static_assert( is_distinct< E, A, B >::value, "duplicate values in E detected" );
and at compile time we will ensure that no two elements are equal.
This requires O(n) recursion depth and O(n^2) work by the compiler at compile time, so for extremely large enums this could cause problems. A O(lg(n)) depth and O(n lg(n)) work with a much larger constant factor can be done by sorting the list of elements first, but that is much, much more work.
With the enum reflection code proposed for C++1y-C++17, this will be doable without relisting the elements.
I didn't completely like any of the answers already posted here, but they gave me some ideas. The crucial technique is to rely on Ben Voight's answer of using a switch statement. If multiple cases in a switch share the same number, you'll get a compile error.
Most usefully to both myself and probably the original poster, this doesn't require any C++ features.
To clean things up, I used aaronps's answer at How can I avoid repeating myself when creating a C++ enum and a dependent data structure?
First, define this in some header someplace:
#define DEFINE_ENUM_VALUE(name, value) name=value,
#define CHECK_ENUM_VALUE(name, value) case name:
#define DEFINE_ENUM(enum_name, enum_values) \
typedef enum { enum_values(DEFINE_ENUM_VALUE) } enum_name;
#define CHECK_ENUM(enum_name, enum_values) \
void enum_name ## _test (void) { switch(0) { enum_values(CHECK_ENUM_VALUE); } }
Now, whenever you need to have an enumeration:
#define COLOR_VALUES(GEN) \
GEN(Red, 1) \
GEN(Green, 2) \
GEN(Blue, 2)
Finally, these lines are required to actually make the enumeration:
DEFINE_ENUM(Color, COLOR_VALUES)
CHECK_ENUM(Color, COLOR_VALUES)
DEFINE_ENUM makes the enum data type itself. CHECK_ENUM makes a test function that switches on all the enum values. The compiler will crash when compiling CHECK_ENUM if you have duplicates.
Here's a solution using X macro without Boost. First define the X macro and its helper macros. I'm using this solution to portably make 2 overloads for the X macro so that you can define the enum with or without an explicit value. If you're using GCC or Clang then it can be made shorter
#define COUNT_X_ARGS_IMPL2(_1, _2, count, ...) count
#define COUNT_X_ARGS_IMPL(args) COUNT_X_ARGS_IMPL2 args
#define COUNT_X_ARGS(...) COUNT_X_ARGS_IMPL((__VA_ARGS__, 2, 1, 0))
/* Pick the right X macro to invoke. */
#define X_CHOOSE_HELPER2(count) X##count
#define X_CHOOSE_HELPER1(count) X_CHOOSE_HELPER2(count)
#define X_CHOOSE_HELPER(count) X_CHOOSE_HELPER1(count)
/* The actual macro. */
#define X_GLUE(x, y) x y
#define X(...) X_GLUE(X_CHOOSE_HELPER(COUNT_X_ARGS(__VA_ARGS__)), (__VA_ARGS__))
Then define the macro and check it
#define BASE1_VAL (5)
#define BASE2_VAL (7)
// Enum values
#define MY_ENUM \
X(MsgFoo1A, BASE1_VAL) \
X(MsgFoo1B) \
X(MsgFoo1C) \
X(MsgFoo1D) \
X(MsgFoo1E) \
X(MsgFoo2A, BASE2_VAL) \
X(MsgFoo2B)
// Define the enum
#define X1(enum_name) enum_name,
#define X2(enum_name, enum_value) enum_name = enum_value,
enum foo
{
MY_ENUM
};
#undef X1
#undef X2
// Check duplicates
#define X1(enum_name) case enum_name: break;
#define X2(enum_name, enum_value) case enum_name: break;
static void check_enum_duplicate()
{
switch(0)
{
MY_ENUM
}
}
#undef X1
#undef X2
Use it
int main()
{
// Do something with the whole enum
#define X1(enum_name) printf("%s = %d\n", #enum_name, enum_name);
#define X2(enum_name, enum_value) printf("%s = %d\n", #enum_name, enum_value);
// Print the whole enum
MY_ENUM
#undef X1
#undef X2
}
I have different Address in Macro's. Which I need to pick any of the address depends on my application. Here the Details below.
#define Location1_Subset1_Sub1 0x011F
#define Location1_Subset1_Sub2 0x0150
#define Location1_Subset1_Sub3 0x0170
#define Location1_Subset2_Sub1 0x0190
#define Location1_Subset2_Sub2 0x01AF
#define Location1_Subset2_Sub3 0x01EF
#define Location2_Subset1_Sub1 0x0211
#define Location2_Subset1_Sub2 0x0230
#define Location2_Subset1_Sub3 0x0240
#define Location2_Subset2_Sub1 0x027F
#define Location2_Subset2_Sub2 0x02A0
#define Location2_Subset2_Sub3 0x02EF
The above Macros is for Address.
if(cond)
{
var1 = 1;
if(cond)
{
var2 = 2;
}
if(cond)
{
var3 = 1;
}
}
uint32 = Read_Address = fn(var1, var2, var3);
This is an example of my application. Based on the var1, var2 and var3, macro should pick the respective address. According to example above. It should pick the Address Location1_Subset2_sub1.
I need to define one macro, which will concatenate the variable. I tried with below macro, which is not right.
#define fn(var1,var2,var3) (Location##var1_Subset##var2_sub##var3)
It is concat the string "Locationvar1_Subsetvar2_subvar3". But I want which will concate the value in var's. I Would be thankful, if some one guide me.
Macros and variables live in entirely different worlds: they cannot read the value of variables. Macros are expanded during the preprocessing stage, so your program isn't even compiled yet. They can only do purely textual manipulation of your source code.
Consider storing your constants in a static array:
static const uint32 fn[2][2][3] = {
{
{0x011F, 0x0150, 0x0170},
{0x0190, 0x01AF, 0x01EF}
},
/* ... */
};
Then you can access them directly with var1 to var3 as indices:
uint32 Read_Address = fn[var1 - 1][var2 - 1][var3 - 1];
Use this source code to concat the strings.
#define fn(var1,var2,var3) (Location##var1##_Subset##var2##_sub##var3)
But in your program, you can't do through this way.Becase Macro is processed in pre-compile time,not in running time.
Is there any possible way to make the compiler bail out if the sizeof (struct Astruct) is uneven?
Background information:
We have a 16-bit microprocessor which will give processor alignment errors if a 16-bit value is mis-aligned. That might happen in the following scenario:
typedef struct
{
U8BIT u8BitValue1;
U8BIT u8BitValue2;
U8BIT u8BitValue3;
} unevenAmountOf8BitValues;
typedef struct
{
U16BIT u16BitValue1;
U16BIT u16BitValue2;
} my16BitValues;
#define U8BIT_COUNT 3
#define U16BIT_COUNT 2
typedef struct
{
unevenAmountOf8BitValues u8BitValues;
my16BitValues u16BitValues;
} valuesCombined;
typedef union
{
valuesCombined myValues;
U8BIT buffer[sizeof(valuesCombined)];
struct
{
U8BIT bufferU8[U8BIT_COUNT];
U16BIT bufferU16[U16BIT_COUNT]; /* <<-- missalignment */
} valuesPerType;
} myValuesInRamAndRom
What we do now is counting the amount of U8BIT/U16BIT/U32BIT values (well, keeping track of the amount using excel) manually and putting that in the U(8/16/32)BIT_COUNT define and then the following:
#if U8BIT_COUNT % 2 == 1
#error The number of U8BIT parameters need to be even, add a dummy
#endif
Keeping track of the amount of U8-/U16-/U32BIT values is pretty error prone and we've had quite some moments that we were thinking "hey, it ain't working", an hour or what later, oh! Darn, forgot to adjust the amount of values define.
A preferred method would be to use the sizeof operator, however that can't be used in the error checking, which I would really like to keep.
So is there anyway to use the sizeof operator and to keep some form of error checking that the amount of U8BIT values must be even?
Combined solution by Lundin and Aaron McDaid:
#define COMPILE_TIME_ASSERT(expr) {typedef U8BIT COMP_TIME_ASSERT[((!!(expr))*2-1)];}
With a C11 compiler, use:
static_assert (sizeof(the struct) % 2 == 0,
"Misaligned");
With older compilers, you can use dirty tricks like
#define COMPILE_TIME_ASSERT(expr) typedef char COMP_TIME_ASSERT[(expr) ? 1 : 0];
...
COMPILE_TIME_ASSERT(sizeof(the_struct) % 2 == 0);
The real solution to your specific problem might however be to ensure that struct padding is enabled. You shouldn't get any misalignments then.
It's possible, using a trick that's also being used in the Linux kernel:
#define BUILD_BUG_OR_ZERO(e) (sizeof(struct{ int:-!!(e);}))
#define ENSURE_EVEN_SIZE(e) BUILD_BUG_OR_ZERO(sizeof(e) % 2 == 1)
struct uneven{
char a,b,c;
};
struct even{
char a,b,c,d;
};
int main(){
ENSURE_EVEN_SIZE(struct even);
/* compiler error: */
ENSURE_EVEN_SIZE(struct uneven);
}
If sizeof(e) % 2 == 1 is true, the bitfield int:-!!(e) would have a negative size, which is forbidden. (Ideone)
Here is the version which allows using same assertion macro multiple times in the same
file.
/*
General purpose static assert.
Works in/out -side of scope:
STATIC_ASSERT(sizeof(long)==8);
int main()
{
STATIC_ASSERT(sizeof(int)==4);
}
*/
#define STATIC_ASSERT(X) STATIC_ASSERT2(X,__LINE__)
/*
These macros are required by STATIC_ASSERT to make token pasting work.
Not really useful by themselves.
*/
#define STATIC_ASSERT2(X,L) STATIC_ASSERT3(X,L)
#define STATIC_ASSERT3(X,L) STATIC_ASSERT_MSG(X,at_line_##L)
/*
Static assertion with special error message.
Note: It depends on compiler whether message is visible or not!
STATIC_ASSERT_MSG(sizeof(long)==8, long_is_not_eight_bytes);
*/
#define STATIC_ASSERT_MSG(COND,MSG) \
typedef char static_assertion_##MSG[(!!(COND))*2-1]