I have a general doubt ..
Is there a way we limit the scope of a MACRO within a .C file just like a static function ?
Macros are done by the pre-processor.
The pre-processor reads all files being processed and applies macros and macro logic, the results of which are then passed to the compiler.
Once a macro is defined, its value will be used everywhere the macro is referenced, even in other files.
Please see the GCC Documentation for details regarding macro usage.
The general practice is to #undef the macro when you're done with it. Error prone, but it works.
Macros don't have any sort of block scope.
You can place the macro in the .c file where you want it to be used instead of a header file and it won't be accessible from other files (although some compilers allow inclusion of .c files but no one does that, well no one that's sensible).
Also mentioned below is the use of #undef but that can quickly start to get messy if you use that macro a lot.
All macros are already like static functions, in that they can only be used in the translation unit in which they're defined. If you want to restrict the areas where you can use a particular macro, just define it in a sensible place.
a macro is evaluated by the preprocessor, not by the compiler.
it doesn't know anything about compilation units, so you cannot restrict it's use to one.
instead it is evaluated within the translation unit.
the macros life cycle starts in the line it is defined (all lines above it do know nothing about the macro), and it ends either at the end of the translation unit or whenever it get's undefined using "#undef"
All C macros are limited to the translation unit (a single C file) unless they are defined in a header and being included to every translation units.
Unfortunately, a translation unit is often big, easily hundreds to thousands of lines of code, and macros are context dependent and it would be much more useful if it can be limited to much smaller context (such as a block scope). Lacking scope limits macro usage in C, mostly global constants, a few universal simple routines, and often need all capital names or some trick to manage pollutions).
However, higher order functions can be easily achieved with macros. Think about how we use natural language, where we may use "it" to refer any thing too long to repeat within the context. A scoped macro system will enable the same ability.
I have developed MyDef, which is essentially a scoped macro system.
Related
The LLVM libc++ headers have a macro, used in function declarations, named _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY.
I don't understand what it means; I looked at its definition, and it says:
// Just so we can migrate to the new macros gradually.
#define _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI
... and this second macro has no definition I can find. So, what does _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY mean and what is it typically expanded into?
(Thanks, #Ruslan)
The intent is to hide functions marked with it from appearing in dynamic libraries ("hide from the ABI"). This used to be done by making such functions inline only, but now, the clang attribute attribute((internal_linkage)) is used; that's the definition of _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI.
As for the inline-for-invisibility macro _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY - what you're seeing is it being redefined to what its name should have been to being with.
Is it mandatory to write #include at the top of the program and outside the main function?
I tried using #define preprocessor inside the main function and it worked fine with only one exception..that being the constant which i defined using the define directive can be used only after the line #define
For instance say printf("%d",PI); #define PI 3.14will give error "Undefined symbol PI". But in the following code i did not encounter any error
#define PI 3.14
printf("%d",PI);
Is this because C is a procedural language and procedural languages implements top down approach?
Also i would like to know that can we use only #define inside the main function or other preprocessor directives too? If we can use then which ones?
Or is it the other way around, instead of #include we can use all the preprocessor directives in the main function?
The only place you can't put a preprocessor directive is in a macro expansion. The sole exception is #pragma, which can also be written _Pragma().
This has nothing to do with "procedural", but due to the fact that C is defined in terms of 8 translation phases, each of which is "as-if" fully-completed before the next phase. For more details, see the C11 standard, section 5.1.1.2.
One example of when it is useful to use preprocessor directives after the start of a file is for the "X Macro" technique (which many people only know as "those .def files").
Preprocessor directives work pretty much anywhere. Of course, you can make your code confusing pretty easily if you abuse this.
The pre-processor does its work before the compiler performs the source code translation into object code. Pre-processing is mostly a string replacement task, so it can be placed just about anywhere in your code. Of course, if the resulting expansion is syntactically incorrect, the expanded source code will fail to compile.
A commonly tolerated practice is to embed conditional compilation directives inside a function to allow the function to use platform specific APIs.
void some_wrapper_function () {
#if defined(UNIX)
some_unix_specific_function();
#elif defined(WIN32)
some_win32_specific_function();
#else
#error "Compiled on an unsupported platform"
#endif
}
By their nature, the directives themselves normally have to be defined at the beginning of the line, and not somewhere in the middle of source line. But, defined macros can of course appear anywhere in the source, and will be replaced according to the substitution rules defined by your directives.
The trick here is to realize that # directives have traditionally been interpreted by a pre-processor, that runs before any compilation. The pre-processor would produce a new source file, which was then compiled. I don't think any modern compiler works that way by default, but the same principles apply.
So when you say
#include "foo.h"
you're saying "insert the entire contents of foo.h into my source code starting at this line."
You can use this directive pretty much anywhere in a source file, but it's rarely useful (and not often readable) to use it anywhere other than at the start of the source.
I have doubts about macros, When we create like the following
#define DATA 40
where DATA can be create? and i need to know size also?and type of DATA?
In java we create macro along with data type,
and what about macro function they are all inline function?
Macros are essentially text substitutions.
DATA does not exist beyond the pre-processing stage. The compiler never sees it. Since no variable is created, we can't talk about its data type, size or address.
Macros are literally pasted into the code. They are not "parsed", but expanded. The compiler does not see DATA, but 40. This is why you must be careful because macros are not like normal functions or variables. See gcc's documentation.
A macro is a fragment of code which has been given a name. Whenever
the name is used, it is replaced by the contents of the macro. There
are two kinds of macros. They differ mostly in what they look like
when they are used. Object-like macros resemble data objects when
used, function-like macros resemble function calls.
You may define any valid identifier as a macro, even if it is a C
keyword. The preprocessor does not know anything about keywords. This
can be useful if you wish to hide a keyword such as const from an
older compiler that does not understand it. However, the preprocessor
operator defined (see Defined) can never be defined as a macro, and
C++'s named operators (see C++ Named Operators) cannot be macros when
you are compiling C++.
macro's are not present in your final executable. They present in your source code only.macro's are processed during pre-processing stage of compilation.You can find more info about macro's here
Preprocessor directives like #define are replaced with the corresponding text during the preprocessing phase of compilation, and are (almost) never represented in the final executable.
I've seen many times code like this:
void func(){
#define a ...
...
#undef a
}
Is the #undef necessary at all?
It is not necessary, but the scope of a #define is global after the line it was defined. It will not obey the function scope, if you are thinking it will.
It's not necessary. If the macro is meant to be used only inside the function, it's probably a good idea to #undef it. If you don't, that just means that the macro remains visible through the rest of the translation unit (source file).
Most macros are probably intended to be visible throughout a source file anyway, so usually the question doesn't arise.
When i declare a macro like you did inside the body of a function then i would #undef it at the end. Because most probably it is meant for that function body only.
In general it is always a good idea to #undef a macro when you know that the macro definition is not going to be used anytime later because the macro definition propagate to all other files which include the file having a macro.
That depends. It is only necessary if you want to ensure that a will not be potentially available at later points in your program depending on your logic. The define is now global (in the current translation unit)!
From gnu.org:
If a macro ceases to be useful, it may be undefined with the `#undef'
directive.
Additionally,
Once a macro has been undefined, that identifier may be redefined as a
macro by a subsequent `#define' directive. The new definition need not
have any resemblance to the old definition.
and
However, if an identifier which is currently a macro is redefined,
then the new definition must be effectively the same as the old one.
Two macro definitions are effectively the same if:
Both are the same type of macro (object- or function-like).
All the tokens of the replacement list are the same.
If there are any parameters, they are the same.
Whitespace appears in the same places in both. It need not be
exactly the same amount
of whitespace, though. Remember that comments count as
whitespace.
Some people love using inline keyword in C, and put big functions in headers. When do you consider this to be ineffective? I consider it sometime even annoying, because it is unusual.
My principle is that inline should be used for small functions accessed very frequently, or in order to have real type checking. Anyhow, my taste guide me, but I am not sure how to explain best the reasons why inline is not so useful for big functions.
In this question people suggest that the compiler can do a better job at guessing the right thing to do. That was also my assumption. When I try to use this argument, people reply it does not work with functions coming from different objects. Well, I don't know (for example, using GCC).
Thanks for your answers!
inline does two things:
gives you an exemption from the "one definition rule" (see below). This always applies.
Gives the compiler a hint to avoid a function call. The compiler is free to ignore this.
#1 Can be very useful (e.g. put definition in header if short) even if #2 is disabled.
In practice compilers often do a better job of working out what to inline themselves (especially if profile guided optimisation is available).
[EDIT: Full References and relevant text]
The two points above both follow from the ISO/ANSI standard (ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E), commonly known as "C99").
In §6.9 "External Definition", paragraph 5:
An external definition is an external declaration that is also a definition of a function (other than an inline definition) or an object. If an identifier declared with external linkage is used in an expression (other than as part of the operand of a sizeof operator whose result is an integer constant), somewhere in the entire program there shall be exactly one external definition for the identifier; otherwise, there shall be no more than one.
While the equalivalent definition in C++ is explictly named the One Definition Rule (ODR) it serves the same purpose. Externals (i.e. not "static", and thus local to a single Translation Unit -- typically a single source file) can only be defined once only unless it is a function and inline.
In §6.7.4, "Function Specifiers", the inline keyword is defined:
Making a function an inline function suggests that calls to the function be as
fast as possible.[118] The extent to which such suggestions are effective is
implementation-defined.
And footnote (non-normative), but provides clarification:
By using, for example, an alternative to the usual function call mechanism, such as ‘‘inline substitution’’. Inline substitution is not textual substitution, nor does it create a new function. Therefore, for example, the expansion of a macro used within the body of the function uses the definition it had at the point the function body appears, and not where the function is called; and identifiers refer to the declarations in scope where the body occurs. Likewise, the function has a single address, regardless of the number of inline definitions that occur in addition to the external definition.
Summary: what most users of C and C++ expect from inline is not what they get. Its apparent primary purpose, to avoid functional call overhead, is completely optional. But to allow separate compilation, a relaxation of single definition is required.
(All emphasis in the quotes from the standard.)
EDIT 2: A few notes:
There are various restrictions on external inline functions. You cannot have a static variable in the function, and you cannot reference static TU scope objects/functions.
Just seen this on VC++'s "whole program optimisation", which is an example of a compiler doing its own inline thing, rather than the author.
The important thing about an inline declaration is that it doesn't necessarily do anything. A compiler is free to decide to, in many cases, to inline a function not declared so, and to link functions which are declared inline.
Another reason why you shouldn't use inline for large functions, is in the case of libraries. Every time you change the inline functions, you might loose ABI compatibility because the application compiled against an older header, has still inlined the old version of the function. If inline functions are used as a typesafe macro, chances are great that the function never needs to be changed in the life cycle of the library. But for big functions this is hard to guarantee.
Of course, this argument only applies if the function is part of your public API.
An example to illustrate the benefits of inline. sinCos.h :
int16 sinLUT[ TWO_PI ];
static inline int16_t cos_LUT( int16_t x ) {
return sin_LUT( x + PI_OVER_TWO )
}
static inline int16_t sin_LUT( int16_t x ) {
return sinLUT[(uint16_t)x];
}
When doing some heavy number crunching and you want to avoid wasting cycles on computing sin/cos you replace sin/cos with a LUT.
When you compile without inline the compiler will not optimize the loop and the output .asm will show something along the lines of :
;*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
;* SOFTWARE PIPELINE INFORMATION
;* Disqualified loop: Loop contains a call
;*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
When you compile with inline the compiler has knowledge about what happens in the loop and will optimize because it knows exactly what is happening.
The output .asm will have an optimized "pipelined" loop ( i.e. it will try to fully utilize all the processor's ALUs and try to keep the processor's pipeline full without NOPS).
In this specific case, I was able to increase my performance by about 2X or 4X which got me within what I needed for my real time deadline.
p.s. I was working on a fixed point processor... and any floating point operations like sin/cos killed my performance.
Inline is ineffective when you use the pointer to function.
Inline is effective in one case: when you've got a performance problem, ran your profiler with real data, and found the function call overhead for some small functions to be significant.
Outside of that, I can't imagine why you'd use it.
That's right. Using inline for big functions increases compile time, and brings little extra performance to the application. Inline functions are used to tell the compiler that a function is to be included without a call, and such should be small code repeated many times. In other words: for big functions, the cost of making the call compared to the cost of the own function implementation is negligible.
I mainly use inline functions as typesafe macros. There's been talk about adding support for link-time optimizations to GCC for quite some time, especially since LLVM came along. I don't know how much of it actually has been implemented yet, though.
Personally I don't think you should ever inline, unless you have first run a profiler on your code and have proven that there is a significant bottleneck on that routine that can be partially alleviated by inlining.
This is yet another case of the Premature Optimization Knuth warned about.
Inline can be used for small and frequently used functions such as getter or setter method. For big functions it is not advisable to use inline as it increases the exe size.
Also for recursive functions, even if you make inline, the compiler will ignore it.
inline acts as a hint only.
Added only very recently. So works with only the latest standard compliant compilers.
Inline functions should be approximately 10 lines or less, give or take, depending on your compiler of choice.
You can tell your compiler that you want something inlined .. its up to the compiler to do so. There is no -force-inline option that I know of which the compiler can't ignore. That is why you should look at the assembler output and see if your compiler actually did inline the function, if not, why not? Many compilers just silently say 'screw you!' in that respect.
so if:
static inline unsigned int foo(const char *bar)
.. does not improve things over static int foo() its time to revisit your optimizations (and likely loops) or argue with your compiler. Take special care to argue with your compiler first, not the people who develop it.. or your just in store for lots of unpleasant reading when you open your inbox the next day.
Meanwhile, when making something (or attempting to make something) inline, does doing so actually justify the bloat? Do you really want that function expanded every time its called? Is the jump so costly?, your compiler is usually correct 9/10 times, check the intermediate output (or asm dumps).