Bruce Eckel's Thinking in C++, 2nd Ed Contents | Prev | Next

Preprocessor pitfalls

The key to the problems of preprocessor macros is that you can be fooled into thinking that the behavior of the preprocessor is the same as the behavior of the compiler. Of course, it was intended that a macro look and act like a function call, so it’s quite easy to fall into this fiction. The difficulties begin when the subtle differences appear.

As a simple example, consider the following:

#define F (x) (x + 1)

Now, if a call is made to F like this

F(1)

the preprocessor expands it, somewhat unexpectedly, to the following:

(x) (x + 1)(1)

The problem occurs because of the gap between F and its opening parenthesis in the macro definition. When this gap is removed, you can actually call the macro with the gap

F (1)

and it will still expand properly, to

(1 + 1)

The above example is fairly trivial and the problem will make itself evident right away. The real difficulties occur when using expressions as arguments in macro calls.

There are two problems. The first is that expressions may expand inside the macro so that their evaluation precedence is different from what you expect. For example,

#define FLOOR(x,b) x>=b?0:1

Now, if expressions are used for the arguments

if(FLOOR(a&0x0f,0x07)) // ...

the macro will expand to

if(a&0x0f>=0x07?0:1)

The precedence of & is lower than that of >=, so the macro evaluation will surprise you. Once you discover the problem (and as a general practice when creating preprocessor macros) you can solve it by putting parentheses around everything in the macro definition. Thus,

#define FLOOR(x,b) ((x)>=(b)?0:1)

Discovering the problem may be difficult, however, and you may not find it until after you’ve taken the proper macro behavior for granted. In the unparenthesized version of the preceding example, most expressions will work correctly, because the precedence of >= is lower than most of the operators like +, /, – – , and even the bitwise shift operators. So you can easily begin to think that it works with all expressions, including those using bitwise logical operators.

The preceding problem can be solved with careful programming practice: Parenthesize everything in a macro. The second difficulty is more subtle. Unlike a normal function, every time you use an argument in a macro, that argument is evaluated. As long as the macro is called only with ordinary variables, this evaluation is benign, but if the evaluation of an argument has side effects, then the results can be surprising and will definitely not mimic function behavior.

For example, this macro determines whether its argument falls within a certain range:

#define BAND(X) (((X)>5 && (X)<10) ? (X) : 0)

As long as you use an “ordinary” argument, the macro works very much like a real function. But as soon as you relax and start believing it is a real function, the problems start. Thus, 

//: C09:Macro.cpp
// Side effects with macros
#include "../require.h"
#include <fstream>
using namespace std;

#define BAND(X) (((X)>5 && (X)<10) ? (X) : 0)

int main() {
  ofstream out("macro.out");
  assure(out, "macro.out");
  for(int i = 4; i < 11; i++) {
    int a = i;
    out << "a = " << a << endl << '\t';
    out << "BAND(++a)=" << BAND(++a) << endl;
    out << "\t a = " << a << endl;
  }
} ///:~

Here’s the output produced by the program, which is not at all what you would have expected from a true function: 

a = 4
  BAND(++a)=0
   a = 5
a = 5
  BAND(++a)=8
   a = 8
a = 6
  BAND(++a)=9
   a = 9
a = 7
  BAND(++a)=10
   a = 10
a = 8
  BAND(++a)=0
   a = 10
a = 9
  BAND(++a)=0
   a = 11
a = 10
  BAND(++a)=0
a = 12

When a is four, only the first part of the conditional occurs, so the expression is evaluated only once, and the side effect of the macro call is that a becomes five, which is what you would expect from a normal function call in the same situation. However, when the number is within the band, both conditionals are tested, which results in two increments. The result is produced by evaluating the argument again, which results in a third increment. Once the number gets out of the band, both conditionals are still tested so you get two increments. The side effects are different, depending on the argument.

This is clearly not the kind of behavior you want from a macro that looks like a function call. In this case, the obvious solution is to make it a true function, which of course adds the extra overhead and may reduce efficiency if you call that function a lot. Unfortunately, the problem may not always be so obvious, and you can unknowingly get a library that contains functions and macros mixed together, so a problem like this can hide some very difficult-to-find bugs. For example, the putc( ) macro in cstdio may evaluate its second argument twice. This is specified in Standard C. Also, careless implementations of toupper( ) as a macro may evaluate the argument more than once, which will give you unexpected results with toupper(*p++).[33]

Macros and access

Of course, careful coding and use of preprocessor macros are required with C, and we could certainly get away with the same thing in C++ if it weren’t for one problem: A macro has no concept of the scoping required with member functions. The preprocessor simply performs text substitution, so you cannot say something like 

class X {
  int i;
public:
#define VAL (X::i) // Error

or anything even close. In addition, there would be no indication of which object you were referring to. There is simply no way to express class scope in a macro. Without some alternative to preprocessor macros, programmers will be tempted to make some data members public for the sake of efficiency, thus exposing the underlying implementation and preventing changes in that implementation.

[33]Andrew Koenig goes into more detail in his book C Traps & Pitfalls (Addison-Wesley, 1989).

Contents | Prev | Next

Contact: webmaster@codeguru.com
CodeGuru - the website for developers.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]