My Compiler(gcc) is showing the warning
warning: declaration of 'index' shadows a global declaration
Please help me understand why this warning comes.
It's when you do something like:
int index;
int main (void) {
int index;
....
return 0;
}
What it's warning about is that the index inside main() is actually hiding the global one you've declared before main().
It's warning you that you can't get at the global definition while the local one is "active". Now that's not necessarily a problem (hence why it's only a warning), it's perfectly valid C, but you need to be aware of the possible consequences.
As an aside, some C implementations (BSD-based) define an index function in string.h which may also cause a problem. Use of this function is deprecated and it doesn't appear in the C standard (use strchr instead) but it may be the cause of problems if you're running on (for example) Mac OS or OpenBSD (or even Linux under some combination of #define settings, I believe).
There are a couple of ways to get around this (if you need to).
The first is probably the preferred one: don't use globals. Yes, that's right, get rid of them. They're very rarely needed so don't make me come over and slap you around :-)
A second way I've seen is to ensure they're "packaged". Assuming that you actually need globals (by no means a certainty, see previous paragraph), create a structure that holds them, such as in the following:
myglobs.h:
struct sMyGlobs {
int index;
// all other globals.
};
extern struct sMyGlobs myGlobs;
myglobs.c:
#include "myglobs.h"
struct sMyGlobs myGlobs;
main.c:
#include <stdio.h>
#include "myglobs.h"
int main (void) {
myGlobs.index = 42;
return 0;
}
This has the advantage in that it's obvious that you're referring to a global and that they're never hidden, unless you do something like define your own local variable called myGlobs.
Related
Files: A(main), B
I have learned that B's function can't be use in A without
funcntion definitions.
But my code ran normally with A, B files without function definitions
This is my code:
B.c
void a()
{
printf("hi");
}
A.c
#include <stdio.h>
void main()
{
a();
}
What is it? I'm confused.
ㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡ
addendum...
sorry for my bad question.
my code works well with error.
but i couldn't see error.
but i have more question for difference between
'void a();'
'extern void a();'
Once upon a time, C did not require prior declaration of all functions. Many compilers still let you get away with this.
In file A.c, when you called
a();
where a was a function the compiler has never seen before, the compiler assumed that the declaration
extern int a();
was in scope. That is, the compiler assumed that a was a function taking unspecified arguments and returning int.
Or, that used to be the rule. That rule is no longer in C, so yes, you are supposed to explicitly declare all your functions before you call them. Most of today's compilers will warn you when they apply the old rule, and many aren't willing to apply the rule at all, or at least, not unless you use a non-default option flag requesting them to. But it sounds like your compiler is still willing to apply the rule without warning or error. That's great if you're compiling a bunch of very old code, but it's not so great if you're trying to learn modern C.
Now, in this case you have the additional problem that the actual definition of function a in file B.c defines it as returning void, not int, so theoretically that's wrong, too. But, in practice, the error of misdeclaring (or mis-calling) void- versus int-returning functions is an innocuous one, that doesn't cause any real problems. (It's still wrong, though, and worth avoiding.)
I think you know this, but a correct setup would either be to have file A.c look like this:
#include <stdio.h>
extern void a(void);
int main()
{
a();
}
or else to create the file B.h containing
extern void a(void);
and then to have file A.c look like this:
#include <stdio.h>
#include "B.h"
int main()
{
a();
}
(Note that I have also changed void main() to int main(), for correctness. If you're using an old compiler, as it sounds like you are, you may also have to add the line return 0; at the end of main().)
Addendum. You had also asked about that extern keyword. It has to do with the distinction between declarations and definitions. But this distinction plays out slightly differently for functions, versus global variables.
Declarations explain what type something has. Definitions explain what type something has, and they additionally allocate memory for the something, and supply its initial value.
These are declarations:
extern int i;
int f(int);
extern int f2(int, double);
These are definitions:
int i;
int i2 = 2;
int f(int x) { return 2 * x; }
int f2(int n, double x) { return n * x; }
The keyword extern explicitly says, "This is a declaration, the definition is somewhere else." For global variables, this makes a big difference. But for functions, when you say int f(int);, the compiler can tell, when it finds a , instead of a {, that this is a declaration (not a definition), so the keyword extern is optional in function declarations.
(Also, functions are always global in C; there are no local functions.)
See also section 4.2 and section 4.3 of these course notes.
I am reading the book "Programming in C" and found in Chapter 10 an example like this:
#include <stdio.h>
void test (int *int_pointer)
{
*int_pointer = 100;
}
int main (void)
{
void test (int *int_pointer);
int i = 50, *p = &i;
printf ("Before the call to test i = %i\n", i);
test (p);
printf ("After the call to test i = %i\n", i);
return 0;
}
I understand the example, but I don't understand the line void test (int *int_pointer); inside of main. Why do I define the signature of test again? Is that idiomatic C?
It's definitely not idiomatic C, despite being fully valid (multiple declarations are okay, multiple definitions are not). It's unnecessary, so the code will still work perfectly without it.
If at all, perhaps the author meant to do
void test (int *int_pointer);
int main (void) {
...
}
in case the function definition was put after main ().
void test (int *int_pointer); is just a declaration (or prototype) of function test. No need of this declaration in main because you already have function definition before main.
If the definition of test were after main then it would be worth of putting its declaration there to let the compiler know about the return type, number of arguments and arguments types of test before calling it.
It's not idomatic C, but still valid.
The line is a declaration of the function test, not definition. A function can't be defined multiple times, but it's valid to have multiple declarations.
It is perfectly idiomatic C, and it actually has a (limited) practical use - although not one that is demonstrated by this example.
When you declare a function or other name at the usual global level, it is brought into scope for all function bodies in the code following the declaration. A declaration cannot be removed from a scope once it has been introduced. The function is permanently visible to the rest of the translation unit.
When you declare a function or other name within a braced block, the scope of the declaration is limited to that block. Declaring a function within the scope of another function will limit its visibility, and not pollute the global namespace or make it visible to any other functions defined in the same translation unit.
This is meaningless in the case of the example, because the definition of test also brings it into scope for all following bodies - but if test were defined in another translation unit, or even if it were defined only at the very bottom of this TU, hiding the declaration inside main would protect any other functions defined afterwards from being able to see its name in their scope.
In practical terms this is of limited use - normally if you don't want a function to be visible, you put it in another translation unit (and preferably make it static) - but you can probably contrive a situation where you might want to use this ability for constructing a module-loading system that doesn't export the original declarations of its components, or something like that (and the fact that this doesn't rely on static/separate object files might potentially have some relevance to embedded/non-hosted target environments where the linking step might not work as it does on PC, allowing you to achieve a measure of namespace protection in a purely-#include-based build system).
Example:
struct module {
void * (* alloc)(size_t);
void (* dealloc)(void *);
} loaded_module;
int main(void) {
if (USE_GC) { // dynamically choose the allocator system
void * private_malloc_gc(size_t);
void private_free_noop(void *);
loaded_module = (struct module){ private_malloc_gc, private_free_noop };
} else {
void * private_malloc(size_t);
void private_free(void *);
loaded_module = (struct module){ private_malloc, private_free };
}
do_stuff();
//...
}
// cannot accidentally bypass the module and manually use the wrong dealloc
void do_stuff(void) {
int * nums = module.alloc(sizeof(int) * 32)
//...
module.dealloc(nums);
}
#include "allocator_implementations.c"
It's not idiomatic; you typically see it in code that has problems getting their header files in order.
Any function is either used in one file only, or it is used in multiple files. If it is only used in its own file, it should be static. If it is used in multiple files, its declaration should be in a header file, and anyone using it should include the header file.
What you see here is very bad style (the function should either be static, or the declaration should be taken from a header style), and also quite pointless because the compiler can see the declaration already. Since the function is in the same file, it's not dangerous; if the declaration and function don't match the compiler will tell you. I have often seen this kind of thing when the function was in a different file; that is dangerous. If someone changes the function, the program is likely to crash or misbehave.
I am reading the book "Programming in C" and found in Chapter 10 an example like this:
#include <stdio.h>
void test (int *int_pointer)
{
*int_pointer = 100;
}
int main (void)
{
void test (int *int_pointer);
int i = 50, *p = &i;
printf ("Before the call to test i = %i\n", i);
test (p);
printf ("After the call to test i = %i\n", i);
return 0;
}
I understand the example, but I don't understand the line void test (int *int_pointer); inside of main. Why do I define the signature of test again? Is that idiomatic C?
It's definitely not idiomatic C, despite being fully valid (multiple declarations are okay, multiple definitions are not). It's unnecessary, so the code will still work perfectly without it.
If at all, perhaps the author meant to do
void test (int *int_pointer);
int main (void) {
...
}
in case the function definition was put after main ().
void test (int *int_pointer); is just a declaration (or prototype) of function test. No need of this declaration in main because you already have function definition before main.
If the definition of test were after main then it would be worth of putting its declaration there to let the compiler know about the return type, number of arguments and arguments types of test before calling it.
It's not idomatic C, but still valid.
The line is a declaration of the function test, not definition. A function can't be defined multiple times, but it's valid to have multiple declarations.
It is perfectly idiomatic C, and it actually has a (limited) practical use - although not one that is demonstrated by this example.
When you declare a function or other name at the usual global level, it is brought into scope for all function bodies in the code following the declaration. A declaration cannot be removed from a scope once it has been introduced. The function is permanently visible to the rest of the translation unit.
When you declare a function or other name within a braced block, the scope of the declaration is limited to that block. Declaring a function within the scope of another function will limit its visibility, and not pollute the global namespace or make it visible to any other functions defined in the same translation unit.
This is meaningless in the case of the example, because the definition of test also brings it into scope for all following bodies - but if test were defined in another translation unit, or even if it were defined only at the very bottom of this TU, hiding the declaration inside main would protect any other functions defined afterwards from being able to see its name in their scope.
In practical terms this is of limited use - normally if you don't want a function to be visible, you put it in another translation unit (and preferably make it static) - but you can probably contrive a situation where you might want to use this ability for constructing a module-loading system that doesn't export the original declarations of its components, or something like that (and the fact that this doesn't rely on static/separate object files might potentially have some relevance to embedded/non-hosted target environments where the linking step might not work as it does on PC, allowing you to achieve a measure of namespace protection in a purely-#include-based build system).
Example:
struct module {
void * (* alloc)(size_t);
void (* dealloc)(void *);
} loaded_module;
int main(void) {
if (USE_GC) { // dynamically choose the allocator system
void * private_malloc_gc(size_t);
void private_free_noop(void *);
loaded_module = (struct module){ private_malloc_gc, private_free_noop };
} else {
void * private_malloc(size_t);
void private_free(void *);
loaded_module = (struct module){ private_malloc, private_free };
}
do_stuff();
//...
}
// cannot accidentally bypass the module and manually use the wrong dealloc
void do_stuff(void) {
int * nums = module.alloc(sizeof(int) * 32)
//...
module.dealloc(nums);
}
#include "allocator_implementations.c"
It's not idiomatic; you typically see it in code that has problems getting their header files in order.
Any function is either used in one file only, or it is used in multiple files. If it is only used in its own file, it should be static. If it is used in multiple files, its declaration should be in a header file, and anyone using it should include the header file.
What you see here is very bad style (the function should either be static, or the declaration should be taken from a header style), and also quite pointless because the compiler can see the declaration already. Since the function is in the same file, it's not dangerous; if the declaration and function don't match the compiler will tell you. I have often seen this kind of thing when the function was in a different file; that is dangerous. If someone changes the function, the program is likely to crash or misbehave.
Is it possible to put the variable declarations in an external function? After reading from Wikipedia that:
an inline function is a function upon which the compiler has been requested to perform inline expansion. In other words, the programmer has requested that the compiler insert the complete body of the function in every place that the function is called, rather than generating code to call the function in the one place it is defined.
I hypothesized that the following might work. It did not take long for the compiler to slap my fingers :(
inline void declaration(){
int a;
}
int main(){
declaration();
a=2;
return 0;
}
This may not be how it is done but if you want a basic idea of how you can think about what happens when you inline a function.
Imagine the compiler turning your code into something like this, then you see why it will not work.
int main(){
{
int a;
}
a=2;
return 0;
}
The call to declaration() is replaced by the contents of the function including brackets, thus int a; is declared in an inner scope and is not visible in the main function.
No, this is not possible.
What is possible, is to use a preprocessor directive #define:
#define VARBLOCK int a, b, c; char ca, cb, cc;
int main()
{
VARBLOCK;
a = 2;
}
This would be a bad practice. Also these would still be variables only available in the scope of function where it were placed, without values being shared.
No - as far as I'm aware an inline function must behave semantically equivalent to a non-inline function; it doesn't affect what counts as legal code. It's just an optimization.
In particular, you could have a variable called a in both functions, but they'd be separate variables on the stack.
(Even if you could do this, I'd suggest it would be a very bad idea in terms of readability.)
inline functions are usually just a function containing no more than about 4 lines and you would want the compiler to do the optimization you where talking about since it would be faster to do what the function does, rather than adding extra code.
Inline expansion is used to eliminate the time overhead when a function is called. It is typically used for functions that execute frequently.
So there's nothing special with the inline function, rather than it might be handled differently by the compiler. They don't share their stack with any other function, which would be the only way for main to use a variable that is created in a different scope.
So my tip is; write your functions, and treat them as you usally should. Then when you are done, inline the short ones that you use a lot.
And if you really wanna create a variable in another function, allocate it on the heap in the function and return a pointer that you save and then set to 2 (your case). :) Just remember to free the memory!
You can do this, though:
#include <stdio.h>
int* GetMyIntAddress(void)
{
static int blah = 0;
return &blah;
}
int main(void)
{
printf("%d\n", *GetMyIntAddress());
*GetMyIntAddress() = 123;
printf("%d\n", *GetMyIntAddress());
return 0;
}
blah will be a global variable defined in the scope of the GetMyIntAddress() function.
If you add inline to the definition of GetMyIntAddress(), you are risking to get multiple independent instances of blah if the inline function is used in different modules (e.g. included from a shared header file).
Does the order in which C objects appear on the file matter?
For example, in functions, if I create two functions and the one above references the other one will it work? (Yes it will, I've tried it.)
Is the same in effect for static functions, INLINE functions, etc.?
Is the same in effect for structs? What happens if I reference a struct which is defined further down on the .c file?
Is this to any extend compiler-specific? How does the compiler work in this case? Does it first scan the whole file for all declarations/definitions and then attempts to dereference functions/symbols?
First, if by "if I create two functions and the one above references the other one will it work?" you mean something like this:
int foo()
{
return bar();
}
int bar()
{
return 0;
}
Then the compiler may do educated guesses at what bar() is, but it will at least spit a warning if bar() wasn't already declared. For symbols that can't be called (like variables or types), it's an outright error if they're used before they're declared.
In C, whenever you use an identifier (and no matter the kind of the identifier: it may be a function, a variable, a type, etc.), it should be declared beforehand. The various modifiers you may add to any identifier (like you said, static, inline and all the others) have no impact on this.
Do not confuse declaration and definition. A declaration is just telling the compiler that a name exists; a definition actually tells the compiler what it is.
For instance, this is a definition:
int bar() { return 4; }
Notice how it has a body, with (simple) code inside.
This is the matching declaration:
int bar();
The compiler will gladly accept the use of a function as soon as it sees either the declaration or the definition for it. For organization reasons and better flexibility, it's often better to write declarations for all your functions at the top of your C file (or inside an included header file) then the definitions.
So, my first example should look like this:
int foo();
int bar();
int foo()
{
return bar();
}
int bar()
{
return 0;
}
With the declarations above the C code, I can change the order of the functions in any way I like.
Typically something must be defined above where you use it. You can avoid this in different ways for different situations.
For functions, just provide a prototype above where it's called and all will be well.
int trol(int a, int b);
// use trol(int, int)
int trol(int a, int b) { }
If you have two functions, a and b, and they call each other and are defined in the order of: a, b, then you must provide b's prototype above the definition of a. a's prototype is not required because it is defined above where it is used inside b. Then the compiler will have no problems.
One other special case for functions is that you can use a function without declaring it and the compiler will try to infer the signature from the call. This answer explains it pretty well I think: Must declare function prototype in C?
For structs, you can use pointers to them before they are actually defined (but you can't access any of the fields) by providing a forward declaration:
struct s;
// use s*'s
struct s { };
(The above scenario facilitates recursive data structures like linked lists and trees; you can use pointers to structs before they are fully defined because the size of any type of pointer is constant.)
It matters, because if the compiler doesn't know what the function is - it will try to 'guess' (create a default int foo() prototype with matching parameters), and if your call is incorrect - you'll have mismatches (build errors, implicit castings, whatever).
It is common practice (if not even required) to declare the function before calling it (through prototypes aka forward declarations).
For functions with variable parameter lists (like printf) you must have a forward declaration for them to work properly. For example this code will not compile:
int foo(int a)
{
b(a);
b("hello", "kitty");
}
void b(int a, ...)
{
printf("%d", a);
}
But this - will:
#include <stdio.h>
int foo(int a)
{
return b(a);
}
int b(int a)
{
return printf("%d", a);
}
(with warning about the implicit forward declaration)
So in order to avoid dealing with the order of the objects in the file - use prototyping (forward declarations) to let the compiler know what's following.
From my experience, everything in C has to be written with the referenced "object" before the reference is made. I don't think this is specific to any compiler, but maybe there are some which I haven't found. Basically, everything always has to be:
Object Declaration
...
Object Reference