|  | Preprocessing with gcc -E | | |
| | | Tim Frink |  |
|  Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 4:21 pm Post subject: Preprocessing with gcc -E |  |
| |  | |
Hi,
I've a question about preprocessing of code. Let's say I've these
three files:
// File: b.h
#ifndef __MY_B_H
#define __MY_B_H
typedef int int_least8_t;
typedef unsigned int uint_least8_t;
#endif
/////////////
// File b.c
#include "b.h"
int main()
{
return 0;
}
/////////////
// File a.c
#include "b.h"
int foo()
{
return;
}
/////////////
I would like to get the preprocessed file where all includes and
macros are resolved. My idea was to use "gcc -E b.c a.c".
I get:
# 1 "b.c"
# 1 "<built-in>"
# 1 "<command line>"
# 1 "b.c"
# 1 "b.h" 1
typedef int int_least8_t;
typedef unsigned int uint_least8_t;
# 2 "b.c" 2
int main()
{
return 0;
}
# 1 "a.c"
# 1 "<built-in>"
# 1 "<command line>"
# 1 "a.c"
# 1 "b.h" 1
typedef int int_least8_t;
typedef unsigned int uint_least8_t;
# 2 "a.c" 2
int foo()
{
return;
}
What I don't understand is why the header file was included twice.
Since __MY_B_H was defined while including b.h from b.c I would assume
that a.c would not include b.h any more. However, this happens.
Why?
And how can I achieve to have b.h included exactly once?
Regards,
Tim |
| |
| | | Ben Bacarisse | |
| | Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 4:21 pm Post subject: Re: Preprocessing with gcc -E | |
| | | |
Tim Frink <plfriko@yahoo.de> writes:
| Quote: | I've a question about preprocessing of code. Let's say I've these
three files:
// File: b.h
#ifndef __MY_B_H
#define __MY_B_H
typedef int int_least8_t;
typedef unsigned int uint_least8_t;
#endif
/////////////
// File b.c
#include "b.h"
int main()
{
return 0;
}
/////////////
// File a.c
#include "b.h"
int foo()
{
return;
}
/////////////
I would like to get the preprocessed file where all includes and
macros are resolved. My idea was to use "gcc -E b.c a.c".
I get:
# 1 "b.c"
# 1 "<built-in>"
# 1 "<command line>"
# 1 "b.c"
# 1 "b.h" 1
typedef int int_least8_t;
typedef unsigned int uint_least8_t;
# 2 "b.c" 2
int main()
{
return 0;
}
# 1 "a.c"
# 1 "<built-in>"
# 1 "<command line>"
# 1 "a.c"
# 1 "b.h" 1
typedef int int_least8_t;
typedef unsigned int uint_least8_t;
# 2 "a.c" 2
int foo()
{
return;
}
What I don't understand is why the header file was included twice.
Since __MY_B_H was defined while including b.h from b.c I would assume
that a.c would not include b.h any more. However, this happens.
Why?
|
Each source file processed by gcc (a.c and b.c) starts off with a
"clean slate" -- no macros defined from processing one source file
carry over to subsequent ones. The include guard (the #ifndef trick)
works only when a single source ends up including b.h by two different
routes (say by including x.h and y.h both of which include b.h).
| Quote: | And how can I achieve to have b.h included exactly once?
|
I am tempted to say, stop wanting that. Even in you get something
that works, it will interact badly with build tools like make that can
compile source files in any order. What is the coding problem that
you are trying to solve this way?
--
Ben. |
| |
| | | Bartc | |
| | Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject: Re: Preprocessing with gcc -E | |
| | | |
"Tim Frink" <plfriko@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:g93uu1$6ht$1@janice.cs.uni-dortmund.de...
| Quote: | I've a question about preprocessing of code. Let's say I've these
three files:
// File: b.h
// File b.c
#include "b.h"
// File a.c
#include "b.h"
What I don't understand is why the header file was included twice.
Since __MY_B_H was defined while including b.h from b.c I would assume
that a.c would not include b.h any more. However, this happens.
Why?
And how can I achieve to have b.h included exactly once?
|
The #include statement is not smart. If you think of an include file as a
giant macro, then clearly everywhere you repeat the include, the file
contents will be expanded at that point.
Anyway you've included b.h just once in each module, which is what counts.
But you seem to want to concatenate all the source files, while expanding
each include. I'm not sure the result will be meaningful, because identical
definitions in each module will also be duplicated.
So if you have sources containing "void foo(){}" in one file, and "void
foo(){}" in another, the result will be: "void foo(){} void foo(){};". What
is it you're trying to achieve?
-- Bartc |
| |
| | | Tim Frink | |
| | Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: Re: Preprocessing with gcc -E | |
First of all, sorry for the double post.
| Quote: | I am tempted to say, stop wanting that. Even in you get something
that works, it will interact badly with build tools like make that can
compile source files in any order. What is the coding problem that
you are trying to solve this way?
|
I'll answer here to all the other posts: I have a prototype program
analysis tool that only accepts single files. The benchmark I wanted
to evaluate however consists of multiple compilation units. So my
idea was to "paste" all files automatically into one file via a
preprocessor. But this doesn't seem to work.
However, I'm still somewhat surprised because
"gcc a.c b.c" works fine. If each function is handled separately
I would expect to get some error of type "multiple definition of"
int_least8_t ... Why does this not happen? |
| |
| | | Bartc | |
| | Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:39 pm Post subject: Re: Preprocessing with gcc -E | |
| | | |
"Tim Frink" <plfriko@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:6hlrfrFmug3eU1@mid.individual.net...
| Quote: | First of all, sorry for the double post.
I am tempted to say, stop wanting that. Even in you get something
that works, it will interact badly with build tools like make that can
compile source files in any order. What is the coding problem that
you are trying to solve this way?
I'll answer here to all the other posts: I have a prototype program
analysis tool that only accepts single files. The benchmark I wanted
to evaluate however consists of multiple compilation units. So my
idea was to "paste" all files automatically into one file via a
preprocessor. But this doesn't seem to work.
However, I'm still somewhat surprised because
"gcc a.c b.c" works fine. If each function is handled separately
I would expect to get some error of type "multiple definition of"
int_least8_t ... Why does this not happen?
|
Gcc works a file at a time. Without being an expert gcc user, I think that
gcc a.c b.c is equivalent to:
gcc -c a.c
gcc -c b.c
followed by linking (and typedef identifiers are not linked between
modules).
I'm sure that there must be some tool that combines multiple .c files into
one large file suitable for input for your application. Either that or
concatenate all the files then edit manually to fix clashes and other
errors.
-- Bartc |
| |
| | | Ben Bacarisse | |
| | Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:34 pm Post subject: Re: Preprocessing with gcc -E | |
| | | |
Tim Frink <plfriko@yahoo.de> writes:
| Quote: | First of all, sorry for the double post.
I am tempted to say, stop wanting that. Even in you get something
that works, it will interact badly with build tools like make that can
compile source files in any order. What is the coding problem that
you are trying to solve this way?
I'll answer here to all the other posts: I have a prototype program
analysis tool that only accepts single files. The benchmark I wanted
to evaluate however consists of multiple compilation units. So my
idea was to "paste" all files automatically into one file via a
preprocessor. But this doesn't seem to work.
|
No, it won't work. In C the file boundaries are important. If you
concatenate sources the result not likely to be legal C and crucial
information will have been lost.
| Quote: | However, I'm still somewhat surprised because
"gcc a.c b.c" works fine. If each function is handled separately
I would expect to get some error of type "multiple definition of"
int_least8_t ... Why does this not happen?
|
Linking two compiled files (C calls the compilation units), each of
which contains a typedef for this type does not result in anything
being multiply defined. Essentially, a typedef is not visible outside
of the unit that contains it. If the same type name was defined twice
in the same compilation unit, or two separate compilation units
defined the same object with external linkage, you would get an error.
--
Ben. |
| |
|
|
