When Are C++ Macros Beneficial

What are C macros useful for?

I end up having to remember what the macro is and substitute it in my head as I read.

That seems to reflect poorly on the naming of the macros. I would assume you wouldn't have to emulate the preprocessor if it were a log_function_entry() macro.

The ones that I have encountered that were intuitive and easy to understand were always like little mini functions, so I always wondered why they weren't just functions.

Usually they should be, unless they need to operate on generic parameters.

#define max(a,b) ((a)<(b)?(b):(a))

will work on any type with an < operator.

More that just functions, macros let you perform operations using the symbols in the source file. That means you can create a new variable name, or reference the source file and line number the macro is on.

In C99, macros also allow you to call variadic functions such as printf

#define log_message(guard,format,...) \
   if (guard) printf("%s:%d: " format "\n", __FILE__, __LINE__,__VA_ARGS_);

log_message( foo == 7, "x %d", x)

In which the format works like printf. If the guard is true, it outputs the message along with the file and line number that printed the message. If it was a function call, it would not know the file and line you called it from, and using a vaprintf would be a bit more work.

When are C++ macros beneficial?

As wrappers for debug functions, to automatically pass things like __FILE__, __LINE__, etc:

#ifdef ( DEBUG )
#define M_DebugLog( msg )  std::cout << __FILE__ << ":" << __LINE__ << ": " << msg
#else
#define M_DebugLog( msg )
#endif

Since C++20 the magic type std::source_location can however be used instead of __LINE__ and __FILE__ to implement an analogue as a normal function (template).

The most useful user-made C-macros (in GCC, also C99)?

for-each loop in C99:

#define foreach(item, array) \
    for(int keep=1, \
            count=0,\
            size=sizeof (array)/sizeof *(array); \
        keep && count != size; \
        keep = !keep, count++) \
      for(item = (array)+count; keep; keep = !keep)

int main() {
  int a[] = { 1, 2, 3 };
  int sum = 0;
  foreach(int const* c, a)
    sum += *c;
  printf("sum = %d\n", sum);

  // multi-dim array
  int a1[][2] = { { 1, 2 }, { 3, 4 } };
  foreach(int (*c1)[2], a1)
    foreach(int *c2, *c1) 
      printf("c2 = %d\n", *c2);
}

Why use Macros in C?

One reason is until C99, the inline keyword was not standard in the C language. Thus macros allowed you to inline small functions. They also in some ways work like templates, ie. you don't have to specify types in the macro definition eg:

#define MAX(x,y) ((x) > (y) ? (x) : (y))

This macro is complient with integers, doubles, floats etc.

When are C++ macros beneficial?

As wrappers for debug functions, to automatically pass things like __FILE__, __LINE__, etc:

#ifdef ( DEBUG )
#define M_DebugLog( msg )  std::cout << __FILE__ << ":" << __LINE__ << ": " << msg
#else
#define M_DebugLog( msg )
#endif

Since C++20 the magic type std::source_location can however be used instead of __LINE__ and __FILE__ to implement an analogue as a normal function (template).

What are legitimate uses for function-like macros?

The comments have captured most of it.

Some types of debugging and instrumentation can be accomplished only by use of a function-style macro. The best example is assert(), but function-style macros can also be used for instrumenting code for profiling as well. Magic macros like __FILE__ and __LINE__ as well as features like # for quoting and ## for token-pasting make function-like macros valuable for the debugging and profiling.

In C++, with templates and typically more aggressive inlining, there are few, if any, other reasons to use a function-style macro. For example, the template function std::max is a much better solution than a MAX macro for the reasons illustrated in the question.

In C, it's sometimes necessary in optimization to ensure the a small piece of code is inlined. Macros, with all their caveats, are still occasionally useful in this context. The ALLCAPS naming convention is there to warn programmers that this is actually a macro and not a function because of all the problems with simple text substitution. For example, if you had several places where you needed the equivalent of std::max in a performance-critical piece of code, a macro--with all its dangers--can be a useful solution.

Macro vs Function in C

Macros are error-prone because they rely on textual substitution and do not perform type-checking. For example, this macro:

#define square(a) a * a

works fine when used with an integer:

square(5) --> 5 * 5 --> 25

but does very strange things when used with expressions:

square(1 + 2) --> 1 + 2 * 1 + 2 --> 1 + 2 + 2 --> 5
square(x++) --> x++ * x++ --> increments x twice

Putting parentheses around arguments helps but doesn't completely eliminate these problems.

When macros contain multiple statements, you can get in trouble with control-flow constructs:

#define swap(x, y) t = x; x = y; y = t;

if (x < y) swap(x, y); -->
if (x < y) t = x; x = y; y = t; --> if (x < y) { t = x; } x = y; y = t;

The usual strategy for fixing this is to put the statements inside a "do { ... } while (0)" loop.

If you have two structures that happen to contain a field with the same name but different semantics, the same macro might work on both, with strange results:

struct shirt 
{
    int numButtons;
};

struct webpage 
{
    int numButtons;
};

#define num_button_holes(shirt)  ((shirt).numButtons * 4)

struct webpage page;
page.numButtons = 2;
num_button_holes(page) -> 8

Finally, macros can be difficult to debug, producing weird syntax errors or runtime errors that you have to expand to understand (e.g. with gcc -E), because debuggers cannot step through macros, as in this example:

#define print(x, y)  printf(x y)  /* accidentally forgot comma */
print("foo %s", "bar") /* prints "foo %sbar" */

Inline functions and constants help to avoid many of these problems with macros, but aren't always applicable. Where macros are deliberately used to specify polymorphic behavior, unintentional polymorphism may be difficult to avoid. C++ has a number of features such as templates to help create complex polymorphic constructs in a typesafe way without the use of macros; see Stroustrup's The C++ Programming Language for details.

Why are preprocessor macros evil and what are the alternatives?

Macros are just like any other tool - a hammer used in a murder is not evil because it's a hammer. It is evil in the way the person uses it in that way. If you want to hammer in nails, a hammer is a perfect tool.

There are a few aspects to macros that make them "bad" (I'll expand on each later, and suggest alternatives):

1. You can not debug macros.
2. Macro expansion can lead to strange side effects.
3. Macros have no "namespace", so if you have a macro that clashes with a name used elsewhere, you get macro replacements where you didn't want it, and this usually leads to strange error messages.
4. Macros may affect things you don't realize.

So let's expand a little here:

1) Macros can't be debugged.
When you have a macro that translates to a number or a string, the source code will have the macro name, and many debuggers can't "see" what the macro translates to. So you don't actually know what is going on.

Replacement: Use enum or const T

For "function-like" macros, because the debugger works on a "per source line where you are" level, your macro will act like a single statement, no matter if it's one statement or a hundred. Makes it hard to figure out what is going on.

Replacement: Use functions - inline if it needs to be "fast" (but beware that too much inline is not a good thing)

2) Macro expansions can have strange side effects.

The famous one is #define SQUARE(x) ((x) * (x)) and the use x2 = SQUARE(x++). That leads to x2 = (x++) * (x++);, which, even if it was valid code [1], would almost certainly not be what the programmer wanted. If it was a function, it would be fine to do x++, and x would only increment once.

Another example is "if else" in macros, say we have this:

#define safe_divide(res, x, y)   if (y != 0) res = x/y;

and then

if (something) safe_divide(b, a, x);
else printf("Something is not set...");

It actually becomes completely the wrong thing....

Replacement: real functions.

3) Macros have no namespace

If we have a macro:

#define begin() x = 0

and we have some code in C++ that uses begin:

std::vector<int> v;

... stuff is loaded into v ... 

for (std::vector<int>::iterator it = myvector.begin() ; it != myvector.end(); ++it)
   std::cout << ' ' << *it;

Now, what error message do you think you get, and where do you look for an error [assuming you have completely forgotten - or didn't even know about - the begin macro that lives in some header file that someone else wrote? [and even more fun if you included that macro before the include - you'd be drowning in strange errors that makes absolutely no sense when you look at the code itself.

Replacement: Well there isn't so much as a replacement as a "rule" - only use uppercase names for macros, and never use all uppercase names for other things.

4) Macros have effects you don't realize

Take this function:

#define begin() x = 0
#define end() x = 17
... a few thousand lines of stuff here ... 
void dostuff()
{
    int x = 7;

    begin();

    ... more code using x ... 

    printf("x=%d\n", x);

    end();

}

Now, without looking at the macro, you would think that begin is a function, which shouldn't affect x.

This sort of thing, and I've seen much more complex examples, can REALLY mess up your day!

Replacement: Either don't use a macro to set x, or pass x in as an argument.

There are times when using macros is definitely beneficial. One example is to wrap a function with macros to pass on file/line information:

#define malloc(x) my_debug_malloc(x, __FILE__, __LINE__)
#define free(x)  my_debug_free(x, __FILE__, __LINE__)

Now we can use my_debug_malloc as the regular malloc in the code, but it has extra arguments, so when it comes to the end and we scan the "which memory elements hasn't been freed", we can print where the allocation was made so the programmer can track down the leak.

[1] It is undefined behaviour to update one variable more than once "in a sequence point". A sequence point is not exactly the same as a statement, but for most intents and purposes, that's what we should consider it as. So doing x++ * x++ will update x twice, which is undefined and will probably lead to different values on different systems, and different outcome value in x as well.

---

Related Topics