When defining macro with zero arguments we can define it with parentheses, thus looking more like function or without parentheses.
What is preferable (probably there's no right answer) way of doing it?
As a general rule, I would expect MACRO() to generate executable code, which may have side-effects. I use MACRO (sans parentheses) for more structural things that yield declarations, boilerplate, or constants.
If you intend to create a macro that mimics a function, then use the () version. Otherwise don't.
Yes, we can and I don't think that there's really any particular technical reason why one is better than the other. However, conventionally we would omit the () where not required.
Related
Everyone knows about classic #define DEFAULT_VALUE 100 macro where the preprocessor will just find the "token" and replace it with whatever the value is.
The problem I am having is understanding the function version of this #define my_puts(x) puts(x). I have K&R in front of me but I simply cannot find a suitable explanation. For instance:
why do I need to supply the number of arguments?
why can their name be whatever?
why don't I have to supply the type?
But mainly I would like to know how this replacement functions under the hood.
In the back of my mind I think I have a memory of someone saying somewhere that this is bad because there are no types.
In short, I would like to know if it is safe and secure to use macros to rename functions (as opposed to the alternative of manually wrapping the function in another function).
Thank you!
The problem I am having is understanding the function version of this #define my_puts(x) puts(x).
Part of your confusion might arise from thinking of this variety as a "function renaming" macro. A more conventional term is "function-like", referring to the form of the macro definition and usage. Providing aliases for function names or converting from one function name to another is a relatively minor use for this kind of macro.
Such macros are better regarded more generally, simply as macros that accept parameters. From that standpoint, your specific questions have relatively clear answers:
why do I need to supply the number of arguments?
You are primarily associating parameter names with the various positions in the macro's parameter list. This is necessary so that the preprocessor can properly expand the macro. That the number of parameters is thereby conveyed (except for variadic macros) is of secondary importance.
why can their name be whatever?
"Whatever" is a little too strong, but the answer is that the names of macro parameters are significant only within the scope of the macro definition. The preprocessor substitutes the actual arguments into each expansion in place of the parameter names whenever it expands the macro. This is analogous to bona fide functions, actually, so I'm not really sure why this particular uncertainty arises for you.
why don't I have to supply the type?
Of the macro? Because to the extent that macros have a type, they all have the same one. They all expand to sequences of zero or more tokens. You can view this as a source-to-source translation. The resulting token sequence will be interpreted by the compiler at a subsequent stage in the process.
But mainly I would like to know how this replacement functions under the hood.
Roughly speaking, wherever the name of an in-scope function like macro appears in the source code followed by a parenthesized list of arguments, the macro name and argument list are replaced by the expansion of the macro, with the macro arguments substituted appropriately.
For example, consider this function-like macro, which you might see in real source code:
#define MIN(x, y) (((x) <= (y)) ? (x) : (y))
Within the scope of that definition, this code ...
n = MIN(10, z);
... expands to
n = (((10) <= (z)) ? (10) : (z));
Note well that
the function-like macro is not providing function alias in this case.
the macro arguments are substituted into the macro expansion wherever they appear as complete tokens in the macro's defined replacement text.
In the back of my mind I think I have a memory of someone saying somewhere that this is bad because there are no types.
Well, there are no types declared in the macro definition. That doesn't prevent all the normal rules around data type from applying to the source code resulting from the preprocessing stage. Both of these factors need to be taken into account. In some ways, the MIN() macro in the above example is more flexible than any one function can be be. Is that bad? I don't mean to deny that there are arguments against, but it's a multifaceted question that is not well captured by a single consideration or a plain "good" vs. "bad" evaluation.
In short, I would like to know if it is safe and secure to use macros to rename functions (as opposed to the alternative of manually wrapping the function in another function).
That's largely a different question from any of the above. The semantics of function-like macros are well-defined. There is no inherent safety or security issue. But function-like macros do obscure what is going on, and thereby make it more difficult to analyze code. This is therefore mostly a stylistic issue.
Function-like macros do have detractors these days, especially in the C++ community. In most cases, they have little to offer to distinguish themselves as superior to functions.
I'm writing unit tests for some function macros, which are just wrappers around some function calls, with a little housekeeping thrown in.
I've been writing tests all morning and I'm starting to get tedium of the brainpan, so this might just be a case of tunnel vision, but:
Is there a valid case to be made for unit testing for macro expansion? By that I mean checking that the correct function behavior is produced for the various source code forms of the function macro's arguments. For example, function arguments can take the form, in source code of a:
literal
variable
operator expression
struct member access
pointer-to-struct member access
pointer dereference
array index
function call
macro expansion
(feel free to point out any that I've missed)
If the macro doesn't expand properly, then the code usually won't even compile. So then, is there even any sensible point in a different unit test if the argument was a float literal or a float variable, or the result of a function call?
Should the expansion be part of the unit test?
As I noted in a comment:
Using expressions such as value & 1 could reveal that the macros are careless, but code inspections can do that too.
I think going through the full panoply of tests is overkill; the tedium is giving you a relevant warning.
There is an additional mode of checking that might be relevant, namely side-effects such as: x++ + ++y as an argument. If the argument to the macro is evaluated more than once, the side-effects will probably be scrambled, or at least repeated. An I/O function (getchar(), or printf("Hello World\n")) as the argument might also reveal mismanagement of arguments.
It also depends in part on the rules you want to apply to the macros. However, if they're supposed to look like and behave like function calls, they should only evaluate arguments once (but they should evaluate each argument — if the macro doesn't evaluate an argument at all, then the side-effects won't occur that should occur (that would occur if the macro was really a function).
Also, don't underestimate the value of inline functions.
Based on the comments and some of the points made in #Jonathan Leffler's answer, I've come to the conclusion that this is something that is better tested in functional testing, preferably with a fuzz tester.
That way, using a couple of automation scripts, the fuzzer can throw a jillion arguments at the function macro and log those that either don't compile, produce compiler warnings, or compile and run, but produce the incorrect result.
Since fuzz tests aren't supposed to run quickly (like unit tests), there's no problem just adding it to the fuzz suite and letting it run over the weekend.
The goal of testing is to find errors. And, your macro definitions can contain errors. Therefore, there is a case for testing macros in general, and unit-testing in particular can find many specific errors, as will be explained below.
Code inspection can obviously also be used to find errors, however, there are good points in favor of doing both: Unit-tests can cheaply be repeated whenever the respective code is modified, say, for reactoring.
Code inspections can not cheaply be repeated (at least they cause more effort than re-running unit-tests), but they also can find other points that tests can never detect, like, wrong or bad documentation, design issues like code duplication etc.
That said, there are a number of issues you can find when unit-testing macros, some of which were already mentioned. And, it may in principle be possible that there are fuzz testers which also check for such problems, but I doubt that problems with macro definitions are already in focus of fuzz-testers:
wrong algorithm: Expressions and statements in macro definitions can just be as wrong as they can be in normal non-macro code.
unsufficient parenthesization (as mentioned in the comments): This is a potential problem with macros, and it can be detected, possibly even at compile time, by passing expressions with operators with low precedence as macro arguments. For example, calling FOO(x = 2) in test code will lead to a compile error if FOO(a) is defined as (2 * a) instead of (2 * (a)).
unintended multiple use of arguments in the expansion (as mentioned by Jonathan): This also is a potential problem specific to macros. It should be part of the specification of a macro how often its arguments will be evaluated in the expanded code (and sometimes there can no fixed number be given, see assert). Such statements about how often an argument will be evaluated can be tested by passing macro arguments with side effects that can afterwards be checked by the test code. For example, if FOO(a) is defined to be ((a) * (a)), then the call FOO(++x) will result in x being incremented twice rather than once.
unintended expansion: Sometimes a macro shall expand in a way that causes no code to be produced. assert with NDEBUG is an example here, which shall expand such that the expanded code will be optimized away completely. Whether a macro shall expand in such a way typically depends on configuration macros. To check that a macro actually 'disappears' for the respective configuration, syntactically wrong macro arguments can be used: FOO(++ ++) for example can be a compile-time test to see if instead of the empty expansion one of the non-empty expansions was used (whether this works, however, depends on whether the non-empty expansions use the argument).
bad semicolon: to ensure that a function like macro expands cleanly into a compound statement (with proper do-while(0) wrapper but without trailing semicolon), a compile time check like if (0) FOO(42); else .. can be used.
Note: Those tests I mentioned to be compile-time tests are, strictly speaking, just some form of static analysis. In contrast to using a static analysis tool, such tests have the benefit to specifically test those properties that the macros are expected to have according to their design. Like, static analysis tools typically issue warnings when macro arguments are used without parentheses in the expansion - however, in many expansions parentheses are intentionally not used.
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.
I have a small piece of code that requires to read 4-bit values bitpacked in a 32-bit integer. Since I need to call this operation several times, even if it's simple, I require max speed on it.
I was pondering about macros and inline functions, thus I made this macro:
#define UI32TO4(x, p) (x >> ((p - 1) *4) & 15)
And I have an inline function that does the same thing.
static inline Uint8 foo_getval(Uint32 bits, int pos){
return (bits >> ((pos-1)*4)) & 15;
}
Considering the simplicity of the operation, and that the values are already prepared for this call (so no possibility of calling on the wrong types, or pass values that are too big or that stuff), what would be the best one to use? Or, at least, the most comprehensible for someone else potentially reading/modifying the code later on?
EDIT! Forgot to mention, I am using C99.
The function is safer. Your assumptions that the values are always "right" only holds while you're developing that code. You can't tell if someone down the line (or yourself when you're tired) won't pass unexpected values.
The compiler will do the inlining when it sees it as effective. Use type-safe functions whenever you can, use macros only when you have no other practical choice.
I would use the inline function because macros can cause unwanted side effects. Use macros only to save typing if necessary.
If a macro name is the same name as a function name in an other compilation unit you would get strange compilation errors. These problems can be hard to find, especially if the macro is expanded elsewhere and no error occurs.
Additionally a function warns you about parameter types and would not let you give a double for pos. The macro could allow this.
It's late, and I'm grumpy (and I'll probably delete this post later) but I get tired of hearing the same arguments against macros parroted over and over again (a double redundacy):
Joachim Pileborg (above) states "using a function allows the compiler to do better typechecking". This is often stated, but I don't believe it. With macros, the compiler already has all the available type information at its fingertips. Functions simply destroy this. (And possibly destroy optimization, by pushing registers out to the stack, but that's a side issue.)
And frast (above) states "macros can cause unwanted side effects". True--but so can functions. I think the rule is to always use UPPER_CASE for macros which don't have function semantics. This rule has often been broken. But it doesnt apply here: the OP has redundantly used both uppercase and function semantics.
But I would suggest a tiny improvement. The OP has quite correctly placed parentheses around the whole macro, but there should also be parentheses around each argument:
#define UI32TO4(x, p) ((x) >> (((p) - 1) * 4) & 15)
Always enclose your macro args in parentheses, unless you are doing string or token concatenting, etc.
Macros are, of course, dangerous, but so are functions. (And the less said of STL, the better).
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.