473,372 Members | 858 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,372 software developers and data experts.

more portable compile-time assert()

Hi,

I'm using an assert()-like macro to test a constant expression at
compile time

#define ASSERT(condition) struct{char assert_failure[(condition)?
1:-1];}

The idea is that this macro cause a compilation error if a constant
condition
is not true (or if the condition is not constant), with some
(admitedly cryptic)
error message, e.g. "error: size of array `assert_failure' is
negative".
This works including for expression involving sizeof, and casts
(assuming the compiler is not broken and knows how to perform
arithmetic
as the target system does), for examples

struct { char this, that; } foo;
ASSERT(2 == sizeof foo); // check size of foo

#define LOW8(x) ((unsigned char)(x))
ASSERT(LOW8(0x1A5)==0xA5); // check LOW8 works

int main(void) {return 0;}
This works on several compilers, but <OT>GCC</OTbarks with a warning
on the tune of "unnamed struct/union that defines no instances".

I'm looking for a more portable alternative. Came up with

#define ASSER1(x) assert_failure_##x
#define ASSER2(x) ASSER1(x)
#define ASSERT(condition) struct ASSER2(__LINE__){char
assert_failure[(condition)?1:-1];}

which mostly works, except if ASSERT is used twice on the same line,
or worse, twice at lines with the same number in different files (this
can
occur with headers).

Anything more robust, and less heavy on namespace polution ?

TIA,

Francois Grieu
Jan 11 '08 #1
11 9184
Francois Grieu a crit :
Hi,

I'm using an assert()-like macro to test a constant expression at
compile time

#define ASSERT(condition) struct{char assert_failure[(condition)?
1:-1];}
I am using something close to:

#define STATIC_ASSERT(tag,cond) \
enum { STATIC_ASSERT__ ## tag = 1/(cond) }

STATIC_ASSERT(sizeof_long_is_smaller_than_sizeof_v oid_ptr,
sizeof(long) >= sizeof(void*)
);

which reports errors like:

... invalid enum
STATIC_ASSERT__sizeof_long_is_smaller_than_sizeof_ void_ptr

the enum ensures compile-time assert and avoid the problem with
runtime sizeof.

a+, ld.
Jan 11 '08 #2
In article <fb**********************************@l32g2000hse. googlegroups.com>,
Francois Grieu <fg****@gmail.comwrote:
>#define LOW8(x) ((unsigned char)(x))
ASSERT(LOW8(0x1A5)==0xA5); // check LOW8 works
That assumes that unsigned char has exactly 8 bits, which is not
a good assumption. If you want the low 8 bits, why not use
bitwise-and ?

I also question whether you really want LOW8 to have a different
type than x? It is not obvious that sizeof LOW8(x) should be
different than sizeof x .

Your definition of LOW8 also does not work if x is a floating
point type, and is not certain to do anything useful if x is
a pointer.
--
"Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature."
-- Rich Kulawiec
Jan 11 '08 #3
Laurent Deniau <La************@gmail.comwrote in comp.lang.c:

I am using something close to:

Could other people please post the compile-time asserts they're using (aka
"static asserts").

I'd like to compare them and pick the best one to use in my own code.

--
Toms hilidhe
Jan 11 '08 #4
On Jan 11, 6:09 pm, rober...@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson)
wrote:
In article <fb744b46-cbad-4ac0-8822-624e180a0...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Francois Grieu <fgr...@gmail.comwrote:
#define LOW8(x) ((unsigned char)(x))
ASSERT(LOW8(0x1A5)==0xA5); // check LOW8 works

That assumes that unsigned char has exactly 8 bits, which is not
a good assumption. If you want the low 8 bits, why not use
bitwise-and ?
<OTmany compilers generate much better code for a cast to unsigned
char than for a bitwise AND. </OT>

An alternative might be

#include <limits.h>

// LOW8(x) efficiently casts x to unsigned char and
// keeps only the low 8 bits; result is an unsigned char
#if UCHAR_MAX==0xFF
#define LOW8(x) ((unsigned char)(x))
#else
#define LOW8(x) ((unsigned char)((unsigned char)(x)&0xFF))
#endif
ASSERT( // check LOW8 works
LOW8(0x1A5)==0xA5 &&
LOW8(0)==0 &&
LOW8(0x80)>=0 &&
LOW8(-1)>=0 &&
1==sizeof LOW8(0x12345678) &&
1==sizeof LOW8(1.)
);
Jan 11 '08 #5

"Tomás Ó hÉilidhe" <to*@lavabit.comwrote in message
>
Could other people please post the compile-time asserts they're using (aka
"static asserts").
This is basically your method for picking up compile time faults.

#if condition
#error "condition was true"
#endif

There are subtle problems with it because the #if condition is expanded by
the preprocessor, not the compiler itself, but it is the standard facility
provided and you should use it.

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
Jan 11 '08 #6
In article <Ac*********************@bt.com>,
Malcolm McLean <re*******@btinternet.comwrote:
>"Tomás Ó hÉilidhe" <to*@lavabit.comwrote in message
>Could other people please post the compile-time asserts they're using (aka
"static asserts").
>This is basically your method for picking up compile time faults.
>#if condition
#error "condition was true"
#endif
>There are subtle problems with it because the #if condition is expanded by
the preprocessor, not the compiler itself, but it is the standard facility
provided and you should use it.
Unfortunately the preprocessor will not evaluate sizeof()
(or at least not and get the sizes that would be generated at compile time!)
--
"I will speculate that [...] applications [...] could actually see a
performance boost for most users by going dual-core [...] because it
is running the adware and spyware that [...] are otherwise slowing
down the single CPU that user has today" -- Herb Sutter
Jan 11 '08 #7
"Tom��������������� ���������������� " wrote:
Laurent Deniau <La************@gmail.comwrote in comp.lang.c:

>I am using something close to:

Could other people please post the compile-time asserts they're using
(aka "static asserts").

I'd like to compare them and pick the best one to use in my own code.
It's been discussed here some time ago; here it is again:
#define ASSERT(condition) \
extern char dummy_assert_array[(condition)?1:-1]

and e.g. to make portability issues stand out,
ASSERT(sizeof(int)==sizeof(long));

--
Ark

Jan 12 '08 #8
On Jan 11, 11:14 am, "Toms hilidhe" <t...@lavabit.comwrote:
Laurent Deniau <Laurent.Den...@gmail.comwrote in comp.lang.c:
I am using something close to:

Could other people please post the compile-time asserts they're using (aka
"static asserts").

I'd like to compare them and pick the best one to use in my own code.
I recently started using something along these lines (influenced from
somewhere, but not sure where off-hand):
#define ASSERT_NAME(name, cond) \
do { \
typedef int name ## _assertion_failed[(int)(cond) * 2 - 1]; \
} while (0)

I personally like using a "name" argument to the macro to avoid
collisions when using __LINE__.
Jan 13 '08 #9
Justin Spahr-Summers wrote:
I recently started using something along these lines (influenced from
somewhere, but not sure where off-hand):
#define ASSERT_NAME(name, cond) \
do { \
typedef int name ## _assertion_failed[(int)(cond) * 2 - 1]; \
} while (0)

I personally like using a "name" argument to the macro to avoid
collisions when using __LINE__.
Suggestions:
1 - Remove spurious "do{" and ";}while(0)". Then you'd be able to use
ASSERT_NAME outside of any block, where "compile-time asserts" ought to be.
2 - There is still a small chance of name collision; to avoid it safely
and forever, replace "typedef" with "extern"
3 - If #2 is done, you no longer need the "name" argument, which fact
simplifies the matters.
Hmmm... After all these are done, what remains is effectively the same
as I posted elsethread.
--
Ark
Jan 13 '08 #10
On 13 jan, 06:34, Ark Khasin <akha...@macroexpressions.comwrote:
Justin Spahr-Summers wrote:
I recently started using something along these lines (influenced from
somewhere, but not sure where off-hand):
#define ASSERT_NAME(name, cond) \
do { \
typedef int name ## _assertion_failed[(int)(cond) * 2 - 1]; \
} while (0)
I personally like using a "name" argument to the macro to avoid
collisions when using __LINE__.

Suggestions:
1 - Remove spurious "do{" and ";}while(0)". Then you'd be able to use
ASSERT_NAME outside of any block, where "compile-time asserts" ought to be.
2 - There is still a small chance of name collision; to avoid it safely
and forever, replace "typedef" with "extern"
more importantly than name collision, typedef doesn't garantee a
compile-time error:

#define ASSERT_NAME(name, cond) \
typedef int name ## _assertion_failed[(cond)?1:-1]

void f(int n)
{
ASSERT(n 0); // compile
}
3 - If #2 is done, you no longer need the "name" argument, which fact
simplifies the matters.
providing a tag or a name should trigger some better error message.
And still name collision may happen with extern:

#define LIB_ASSERT(cond) \
extern int dummy_assert_array[(cond)?1:-1]

LIB_ASSERT(sizeof(long) >= sizeof(void*));

#define ASSERT(cond) \
extern char dummy_assert_array[(cond)?1:-1]

ASSERT(sizeof(long) >= sizeof(void*));

while this has little chance to happen, it must still be considered in
case of a third party lib use the same trick and the same name but
with a different type.
Hmmm... After all these are done, what remains is effectively the same
as I posted elsethread.
a+, ld.
Jan 14 '08 #11
Laurent Deniau wrote:
>3 - If #2 is done, you no longer need the "name" argument, which fact
simplifies the matters.

providing a tag or a name should trigger some better error message.
And still name collision may happen with extern:

#define LIB_ASSERT(cond) \
extern int dummy_assert_array[(cond)?1:-1]

LIB_ASSERT(sizeof(long) >= sizeof(void*));

#define ASSERT(cond) \
extern char dummy_assert_array[(cond)?1:-1]

ASSERT(sizeof(long) >= sizeof(void*));

while this has little chance to happen, it must still be considered in
case of a third party lib use the same trick and the same name but
with a different type.
IMHO, third party lib should not define any of this stuff in its public
header(s).

Anyway, that's simple to deal with:
#define dummy_assert_array my_very_own_assert_array

If you still have a collision with somebody else's names, change the macro.

--
Ark
Jan 17 '08 #12

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

28
by: lovecreatesbeauty | last post by:
On gcc, which version of C standard has the most compliant: -c89, -ansi or c99? For more portable C code, which options should be applied to compilation? Can the following options guarantee the...
2
by: octangle | last post by:
Create enumerated values using the three highest bits as bit flags that define comparison operators. VERSION A: ---------- enum eCriteria { eCriteriaOne = 1, eCriteriaTwo = 2,
1
by: CloudSolutions | last post by:
Introduction: For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
0
by: Faith0G | last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome former...
0
by: taylorcarr | last post by:
A Canon printer is a smart device known for being advanced, efficient, and reliable. It is designed for home, office, and hybrid workspace use and can also be used for a variety of purposes. However,...
0
by: aa123db | last post by:
Variable and constants Use var or let for variables and const fror constants. Var foo ='bar'; Let foo ='bar';const baz ='bar'; Functions function $name$ ($parameters$) { } ...
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
If we have dozens or hundreds of excel to import into the database, if we use the excel import function provided by database editors such as navicat, it will be extremely tedious and time-consuming...
1
by: nemocccc | last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
1
by: Sonnysonu | last post by:
This is the data of csv file 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length. suppose the i have to...
0
by: Hystou | last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID: 1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration. 2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.