I am writing a big code and I don't want it all to be in my main.c so I wrote a .inc file that has IF-ELSE statement with function and I was wondering can it be written like this:
#if var==1
process(int a)
{
printf("Result is: %d",2*a);
}
#else
process(int a)
{
printf("Result is: %d",10*a);
}
#endif
I tried to compile it but it gives me errors or in best case it just goes on the first function process without checking the var variable (it is set to 0).
The preprocessor doesn't "know" the value of any variable, because it does its work even before compilation, not at runtime.
In the condition of a preprocessor #if you can only evaluate #define'd symbols and constant expressions.
The particular example you are showing can be simply converted to:
printf("Result is: %d", (var == 1 ? 2: 10) * a);
Just to complete. For a standard conforming compiler your code would always be correct. In #if expression evaluations all identifiers that are not known to the preprocessor are simply replaced with 0 (or false if you want). So in your particular case, if var is just a variable and not a macro, the result would always be the second version of your function.
For the error that you report for MS: I did know that the MS compilers aren't standard conforming, but I wasn't aware that they don't even fulfill such basic language requirements.
This is what you want:
process(int a)
{
if (var == 1)
printf("Result is: %d",2*a);
else
printf("Result is: %d",10*a);
}
It is important to remember that the preprocessor is its own program and not a part of the program you are writing. The variable "var" (or whatever var represents here) is not in the the namespace of the preprocessor's identifiers.
Related
I am trying to understand defining functions as macros and I have the following code, which I am not sure I understand:
#define MAX(i, limit) do \
{ \
if (i < limit) \
{ \
i++; \
} \
} while(1)
void main(void)
{
MAX(0, 3);
}
As I understand it tries to define MAX as an interval between 2 numbers? But what's the point of the infinite loop?
I have tried to store the value of MAX in a variable inside the main function, but it gives me an error saying expected an expression
I am currently in a software developing internship, and trying to learn embedded C since it's a new field for me. This was an exercise asking me what the following code will do. I was confused since I had never seen a function written like this
You are confused because this is a trick question. The posted code makes no sense whatsoever. The MAX macro expands indeed to an infinite loop and since its first argument is a literal value, i++ expands to 0++ which is a syntax error.
The lesson to be learned is: macros are confusing, error prone and should not be used to replace functions.
You have to understand that before your code gets to compiler, first it goes through a preprocessor. And it basically changes your text-written code. The way it changes the code is controlled with preprocessor directives (lines that begin with #, e.g. #include, #define, ...).
In your case, you use a #define directive, and everywhere a preprocessor finds a MAX(i, limit) will be replaced with its definition.
And the output of a preprocessor is also a textual file, but a bit modified. In your case, a preprocessor will replace MAX(0, 3) with
do
{
if (0 < 3)
{
0++;
}
} while(1)
And now the preprocessor output goes to a compiler like that.
So writing a function in a #define is not the same as writing a normal function void max(int i, int limit) { ... }.
Suppose you had a large number of statements of the form
if(a < 10) a++;
if(b < 100) b++;
if(c < 1000) c++;
In a comment, #the busybee refers to this pattern as a "saturating incrementer".
When you see a repeated pattern in code, there's a natural inclination to want to encapsulate the pattern somehow. Sometimes this is a good idea, or sometimes it's fine to just leave the repetition, if the attempt to encapsulate it ends up making things worse.
One way to encapsulate this particular pattern — I'm not going to say whether I think it's a good way or not — would be to define a function-like macro:
#define INCR_MAX(var, max) if(var < max) var++
Then you could say
INCR_MAX(a, 10);
INCR_MAX(b, 100);
INCR_MAX(c, 1000);
One reason to want to make this a function-like macro (as opposed to a true function) is that a macro can "modify its argument" — in this case, whatever variable name you hand to it as var — in a way that a true function couldn't. (That is, if your saturating incrementer were a true function, you would have to call it either as incr_max(&a, 10) or a = incr_max(a, 10), depending on how you chose to set it up.)
However, there's an issue with function-like macros and the semicolon at the end. I'm not going to explain that whole issue here; there's a big long previous SO question about it.
Applying the lesson of that other question, an "improved" INCR_MAX macro would be
#define INCR_MAX(var, max) do { if(var < max) var++; } while(0)
Finally, it appears that somewhere between your exercise and this SO question, the while(0) at the end somehow got changed to while(1). This just about has to have been an unintentional error, since while(1) makes no sense in this context whatsoever.
Yeah, there's a reason you don't understand it - it's garbage.
After preprocessing, the code is
void main(void)
{
do
{
if ( 0 < 3 )
{
0++;
}
} while(1);
}
Yeah, no clue what this thing is supposed to do. The name MAX implies that it should evaluate to the larger of its two arguments, a la
#define MAX(a,b) ((a) < (b) ? (b) : (a))
but that's obviously not what it's doing. It's not defining an interval between two numbers, it's attempting to set the value of the first argument to the second, but in a way that doesn't make a lick of sense.
There are three problems (technically, four):
the compiler will yak on 0++ - a constant cannot be the operand of the ++ or -- operators;
If either i or limit are expressions, such as MAX(i+1, i+5) you're going to have the same problem with the ++ operator and you're going to have precedence issues;
assuming you fix those problems, you still have an infinite loop;
The (technical) fourth problem is ... using a macro as a function. I know, this is embedded world, and embedded world wants to minimize function call overhead. That's what the inline function specifier is supposed to buy you so you don't have to go through this heartburn.
But, okay, maybe the compiler available for the system you're working on doesn't support inline so you have to go through this exercise.
But you're going to have to go to the person who gave you this code and politely and respectfully ask, "what is this crap?"
Pardon if this question is naive. Consider the following program:
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
int i = 1;
i = i + 2;
5;
i;
printf("i: %d\n", i);
}
In the above example, the statements 5; and i; seem totally superfluous, yet the code compiles without warnings or errors by default (however, gcc does throw a warning: statement with no effect [-Wunused-value] warning when ran with -Wall). They have no effect on the rest of the program, so why are they considered valid statements in the first place? Does the compiler simply ignore them? Are there any benefits to allowing such statements?
One benefit to allowing such statements is from code that's created by macros or other programs, rather than being written by humans.
As an example, imagine a function int do_stuff(void) that is supposed to return 0 on success or -1 on failure. It could be that support for "stuff" is optional, and so you could have a header file that does
#if STUFF_SUPPORTED
#define do_stuff() really_do_stuff()
#else
#define do_stuff() (-1)
#endif
Now imagine some code that wants to do stuff if possible, but may or may not really care whether it succeeds or fails:
void func1(void) {
if (do_stuff() == -1) {
printf("stuff did not work\n");
}
}
void func2(void) {
do_stuff(); // don't care if it works or not
more_stuff();
}
When STUFF_SUPPORTED is 0, the preprocessor will expand the call in func2 to a statement that just reads
(-1);
and so the compiler pass will see just the sort of "superfluous" statement that seems to bother you. Yet what else can one do? If you #define do_stuff() // nothing, then the code in func1 will break. (And you'll still have an empty statement in func2 that just reads ;, which is perhaps even more superfluous.) On the other hand, if you have to actually define a do_stuff() function that returns -1, you may incur the cost of a function call for no good reason.
Simple Statements in C are terminated by semicolon.
Simple Statements in C are expressions. An expression is a combination of variables, constants and operators. Every expression results in some value of a certain type that can be assigned to a variable.
Having said that some "smart compilers" might discard 5; and i; statements.
Statements with no effect are permitted because it would be more difficult to ban them than to permit them. This was more relevant when C was first designed and compilers were smaller and simpler.
An expression statement consists of an expression followed by a semicolon. Its behavior is to evaluate the expression and discard the result (if any). Normally the purpose is that the evaluation of the expression has side effects, but it's not always easy or even possible to determine whether a given expression has side effects.
For example, a function call is an expression, so a function call followed by a semicolon is a statement. Does this statement have any side effects?
some_function();
It's impossible to tell without seeing the implementation of some_function.
How about this?
obj;
Probably not -- but if obj is defined as volatile, then it does.
Permitting any expression to be made into an expression-statement by adding a semicolon makes the language definition simpler. Requiring the expression to have side effects would add complexity to the language definition and to the compiler. C is built on a consistent set of rules (function calls are expressions, assignments are expressions, an expression followed by a semicolon is a statement) and lets programmers do what they want without preventing them from doing things that may or may not make sense.
The statements you listed with no effect are examples of an expression statement, whose syntax is given in section 6.8.3p1 of the C standard as follows:
expression-statement:
expressionopt ;
All of section 6.5 is dedicated to the definition of an expression, but loosely speaking an expression consists of constants and identifiers linked with operators. Notably, an expression may or may not contain an assignment operator and it may or may not contain a function call.
So any expression followed by a semicolon qualifies as an expression statement. In fact, each of these lines from your code is an example of an expression statement:
i = i + 2;
5;
i;
printf("i: %d\n", i);
Some operators contain side effects such as the set of assignment operators and the pre/post increment/decrement operators, and the function call operator () may have a side effect depending on what the function in question does. There is no requirement however that one of the operators must have a side effect.
Here's another example:
atoi("1");
This is calling a function and discarding the result, just like the call printf in your example but the unlike printf the function call itself does not have a side effect.
Sometimes such a statements are very handy:
int foo(int x, int y, int z)
{
(void)y; //prevents warning
(void)z;
return x*x;
}
Or when reference manual tells us to just read the registers to archive something - for example to clear or set some flag (very common situation in the uC world)
#define SREG ((volatile uint32_t *)0x4000000)
#define DREG ((volatile uint32_t *)0x4004000)
void readSREG(void)
{
*SREG; //we read it here
*DREG; // and here
}
https://godbolt.org/z/6wjh_5
Below I change the value of the function that I call depending on the value of INPUT:
#include <stdio.h>
#define INPUT second
#if INPUT == first
#define FUNCTOCALL(X) first(X)
#elif INPUT == second
#define FUNCTOCALL(X) second(X)
#endif
void first(int x) {
printf("first %d\n", x);
}
void second(int x) {
printf("second %d\n", x);
}
int main() {
FUNCTOCALL(3);
return 0;
}
However, the output is first 3, even if INPUT is equal to second, as above. In fact, the first branch is always entered, regardless of the value of INPUT. I'm completely stumped by this - could someone explain what stupid mistake I'm making?
The c preprocessor only works on integer constant expressions in its conditionals.
If you give it tokens it can't expand (such as first or second where first and second aren't macros)
it'll treat them as 0 and 0 == 0 was true last time I used math. That's why the first branch is always taken.
6.10.1p4:
... After all replacements due to macro expansion and the defined
unary operator have been performed, all remaining identifiers
(including those lexically identical to keywords) are replaced with
the pp-number 0, and then each preprocessing token is converted into a
token. ...
You have no macros first and second defined. Be aware that the pre-processor is not aware of C or C++ function names!* In comparisons and calculations (e. g. #if value or #if 2*X == Y), macros not defined (not defined at all or undefined again) or defined without value evaluate to 0. So, as first and second are not defined, INPUT is defined without value, and the comparison in both #if expressions evaluates to 0 == 0...
However, if you did define the two macros as needed, they would collide with the C function names and the pre-processor would replace these with the macro values as you just defined them, most likely resulting in invalid code (e. g. functions named 1 and 2)...
You might try this instead:
#define INPUT SECOND
#define FIRST 1
#define SECOND 2
#if INPUT == FIRST
#define FUNCTOCALL(X) first(X)
#elif INPUT == SECOND
#define FUNCTOCALL(X) second(X)
#else
# error INPUT not defined
#endif
Note the difference in case, making the macro and the function name differ.
* To be more precise, the pre-processor is not aware of any C or C++ tokens, so it does not know about types like int, double, structs or classes, ... – all it knows is what you make it explicitly aware of with #define, everything else is just text it operates on and, if encountering some known text nodes, replacing them with whatever you defined.
I have a fundamental question regarding the C preprocessor constant evaluation and I would like some help in understanding if the preprocessor helps in optimizing the code in a situation like this. I understand that the preprocessor merely "replaces text" in the code. By that rule, even constant expressions get replaced in the code. For instance, the below code:
#include <stdio.h>
#define MY_NUM 2+2*2
int main()
{
int a = 6/MY_NUM;
printf("a: %d\n", a);
return 0;
}
The value of a comes to 7. This is because the preprocessed code looks something like this:
int main()
{
int a = 6/2+2*2;
printf("a: %d\n", a);
return 0;
}
I can see that MY_NUM did not evaluate to 6 before the compilation kicks in. Of course the compiler then optimizes the code by evaluating the value of a at compile time.
I am not sure if preprocessor constant folding happens or not or if it is even possible. Or is there any way (flag in gcc) to enable it. The regular -O optimizations do not enable this. Is there anyway we could change the behavior of the preprocessor here?
I am using gcc 4.8.4 for my code.
No, the only time the preprocessor evaluates any expression is in #if / #elif.
You can fake arithmetic by implementing it in terms of token concatenation and a ton of macros, but that's much harder than simply doing
#define MY_NUM (2+2*2)
But there's no simple compiler switch because macro expansion is just token replacement.
I am trying to use #if macros by defining the type of operation to invoke the right code, So i made a very simple example similar to what I am trying to do:
#include <stdio.h>
enum{ADD,SUB,MUL};
#define operation ADD
int main()
{
int a = 4;
int b = 2;
int c;
#if (operation == ADD)
c = a+b;
#endif
#if (operation == SUB)
c = a-b;
#endif
#if (operation == MUL)
c = a*b;
#endif
printf("result = %i",c);
return 0;
}
But unfortunately that does not work I get the following result = 8... if I replace The operation with numbers it works fine .... But i want it to work as it is described above.
Any help
The preprocessor is a step that is (in a way) done before the actual compiler sees the code. Therefore it has no idea about enumerations or their values, as they are set during compilation which happens after preprocessing.
You simply can't use preprocessor conditional compilation using enumerations.
The preprocessor will always consider that as false:
#if IDENT == IDENT
It can only test for numeric values.
Simplify your code and feed it to the preprocessor:
enum {ADD,SUB,MUL};
#define operation ADD
int main()
{
(operation == ADD);
}
The result of the preprocessor output is:
enum {ADD,SUB,MUL};
int main()
{
(ADD == ADD);
}
As you see, the enumerate value hasn't been evaluated. In the #if statement, that expression is just seen as false.
So a workaround would be to replace your enumerate by a series of #define:
#define ADD 1
#define SUB 2
#define MUL 3
like this it works. Output of preprocessor output is now:
int main()
{
int a = 4;
int b = 2;
int c;
c = a+b;
# 28 "test.c"
printf("result = %i",c);
return 0;
}
the solution is:
either rely at 100% on the preprocessor (as the solution above suggests)
or rely at 100% on the compiler (use enums and real if statements)
As others have said, the preprocessor performs its transformations at a very early phase in compilation, before enum values are known. So you can't do this test in #if.
However, you can just use an ordinary if statement. Any decent compiler with optimization enabled will detect that you're comparing constants, perform the tests at compile time, and throw out the code that will never be executed. So you'll get the same result that you were trying to achieve with #if.
But i want it to work as it is described above.
You seem to mean that you want the preprocessor to recognize the enum constants as such, and to evaluate the == expressions in that light. I'm afraid you're out of luck.
The preprocessor knows nothing about enums. It operates on a mostly-raw stream of tokens and whitespace. When it evaluates a directive such as
#if (operation == SUB)
it first performs macro expansion to produce
#if (ADD == SUB)
. Then it must somehow convert the tokens ADD and SUB to numbers, but, again, it knows nothing about enums or the C significance of the preceding code. Its rule for interpreting such symbols as numbers is simple: it replaces each with 0. The result is that all three preprocessor conditionals in your code will always evaluate to true.
If you want the preprocessor to do this then you need to define the symbols to the preprocessor. Since you're not otherwise using the enum, you might as well just replace it altogether with
#define ADD 1
#define SUB 2
#define MUL 3
If you want the enum, too, then just use different symbols with the preprocessor than you use for the enum constants. You can use the same or different values, as you like, because never the twain shall meet.
Another solution would be to have the enum in an included header file.