Is it legal to include source file?

[mr.polik]

Is it legal to do something like this:
#include "x.c" in other source file?
And is it good idea?
Thank you in advance for your answers,
Igor.

[Richard Heathfield]

mr******@gmail. com said:

Is it legal to do something like this:
#include "x.c" in other source file?

Yes.

And is it good idea?

No.

Thank you in advance for your answers,
Igor.

That'th all right, Igor. The uthual way to incorporate multiple
thourtheth into one program ith to compile them theparately, and then
link them together. For ecthample, if you are uthing the GNU compiler
(which begth to be lithped, but I lack thuffithient thpittle), you
might do thith:

gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -c -o x.o x.c
gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -c -o y.o y.c
gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -c -o z.o z.c
gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -o foo x.o y.o z.o

Might I altho thuggetht that you invethtigate your implementathion 'th
third-party library fathilitieth?

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Thad Smith]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

mr******@gmail. com said:

>>Is it legal to do something like this:
#include "x.c" in other source file?

Yes.

>>And is it good idea?

No.

That'th all right, Igor. The uthual way to incorporate multiple
thourtheth into one program ith to compile them theparately, and then
link them together.

Been to the dentist? ;-)

There was a project several years ago in which I included a code file.
I was writing serial I/O drivers for multiple ports, but using a single
function and pointers/indexes to the data area associated with the port
significantly increased the interrupt processing time. I wrote one
procedure as a template, then had separate wrapper functions for each
port which included the code file after setting a defined constant for
the port value. For each driver the port was constant, so no run-time
indexing or dereferencing was needed. The I/O ports were also directly
addressed.

Bottom line was that the code was defined in one place, and was
instantiated in multiple places to optimize speed at the expense of code
space. Come to think of it, that's similar to what happens with
function-like macro usage, and inline functions, just a different way to
invoke it.

It's a technique, though, which I use only in special circumstances.

--
Thad

[Barry Schwarz]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:02:18 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

mr******@gmail. com said:

>Is it legal to do something like this:
#include "x.c" in other source file?

Yes.

>And is it good idea?

No.

>Thank you in advance for your answers,
Igor.

That'th all right, Igor. The uthual way to incorporate multiple

What in the original post prompted you to be this snide? Any value in
your response will be lost on all the participants who struggle
through this group in a second language. Are you having a running
battle with this poster in a different group?
Remove del for email

[Tim Prince]

Thad Smith wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

> mr******@gmail. com said:

>>Is it legal to do something like this:
#include "x.c" in other source file?

Yes.

>>And is it good idea?

No.

>
Bottom line was that the code was defined in one place, and was
instantiated in multiple places to optimize speed at the expense of code
space. Come to think of it, that's similar to what happens with
function-like macro usage, and inline functions, just a different way to
invoke it.

It's a technique, though, which I use only in special circumstances.

I've seen it done where the same code is instantiated with multiple data
types. As it was done that way by people more expert than the average
of those whose code I inherit, I work with it, rather than pass judgment.

[Richard Heathfield]

Barry Schwarz said:

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:02:18 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

>mr******@gmail. com said:

<snip>

>>

>>Thank you in advance for your answers,
Igor.

That'th all right, Igor. The uthual way to incorporate multiple

What in the original post prompted you to be this snide?

What maketh you think I'm being thnide? Have you never read any
Dithcworld bookth?

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Ben Pfaff]

Thad Smith <Th*******@acm. orgwrites:

There was a project several years ago in which I included a code
file. I was writing serial I/O drivers for multiple ports, but using a
single function and pointers/indexes to the data area associated with
the port significantly increased the interrupt processing time. I
wrote one procedure as a template, then had separate wrapper functions
for each port which included the code file after setting a defined
constant for the port value. For each driver the port was constant,
so no run-time indexing or dereferencing was needed. The I/O ports
were also directly addressed.

This technique sometimes makes sense, but I'd suggest that giving
an included code file a .c extension is misleading. When I do
something like this, I use a .inc or .def or other extension that
is less likely to surprise programmers reading the code later.
--
"Welcome to the wonderful world of undefined behavior, where the demons
are nasal and the DeathStation users are nervous." --Daniel Fox

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:50:10 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

>Barry Schwarz said:

>On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:02:18 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.i nvalidwrote:

>>mr******@gmail. com said:

<snip>

>>>
Thank you in advance for your answers,
Igor.

That'th all right, Igor. The uthual way to incorporate multiple

What in the original post prompted you to be this snide?

What maketh you think I'm being thnide? Have you never read any
Dithcworld bookth?

I guess the problem is that your post could be construed as an
insulting joke.

Imagine if we insisted on comparing you to Richard the Third, hump and
all, or invariably responded in Bronte-esque language and complained
about how you'd treated Cathy?

Igor is after all a real name as well as a running joke in Discworld.

(and yes, I know you won't read this, you killfiled me because you
thought I kept insulting you. Hmm, curiouser and curiouser..)
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

[Thad Smith]

Ben Pfaff wrote:

Thad Smith <Th*******@acm. orgwrites:

>>There was a project several years ago in which I included a code
file. I was writing serial I/O drivers for multiple ports, but using a
single function and pointers/indexes to the data area associated with
the port significantly increased the interrupt processing time. I
wrote one procedure as a template, then had separate wrapper functions
for each port which included the code file after setting a defined
constant for the port value. For each driver the port was constant,
so no run-time indexing or dereferencing was needed. The I/O ports
were also directly addressed.

This technique sometimes makes sense, but I'd suggest that giving
an included code file a .c extension is misleading. When I do
something like this, I use a .inc or .def or other extension that
is less likely to surprise programmers reading the code later.

God point, Ben. I think I used an extension of .ci.

--
Thad

[Richard Heathfield]

Don Bruder said:

In article <a3************ *************** *****@4ax.com>,
Barry Schwarz <sc******@doezl .netwrote:

>On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:02:18 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.i nvalidwrote:

mr******@gmail. com said:

<snip>

>
Thank you in advance for your answers,
Igor.

That'th all right, Igor. The uthual way to incorporate multiple

What in the original post prompted you to be this snide?

So I'm not alone?

(I thought the same thing.)

Then I apologise unreservedly to the OP. Silly joke gone wrong. Sorry.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.