From: "Steve Graegert" <graegerts@gmail.com>
To: Shriramana Sharma <samjnaa@gmail.com>
Cc: Linux C Programming List <linux-c-programming@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: include guards
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:09:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6a00c8d50706200809i7f2f2d7aq9dfe073932535cc0@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <46720AFF.6070402@gmail.com>
Shriramana,
Please see inline. Thanks.
On 6/15/07, Shriramana Sharma <samjnaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> To prevent header files from being included more than once in the same
> translation unit, we use include guards like
>
> # ifndef FOO_H
> # define FOO_H
> ...
> # endif
>
> Recently I came to know that I can use simply:
>
> # pragma once
>
> instead of the above group of sentences and the desired effect is still
> accomplished.
>
> This leads me to think of two things:
>
> 1. why use the ifndef-define-endif method when the pragma once method is
> simpler and cleaner?
pragma(s) are, as most language extensions, not portable.
> 2. why should we need to use either method at all? If it is a
> universally undesirable behaviour that the same header file is included
> in a translation unit more than once, then an intelligent compiler (or
> preprocessor) itself can by default take of this, right?
Yes, if a header file is contained entirely in a `#ifndef'
conditional, then the preprocessor records that fact. But if a
subsequent `#include' specifies the same file, and the macro in the
#ifndef is already defined, then the file is entirely skipped, without
even reading it. How else should a preprossessor deal with this in a
portable manner? Keep in mind that preprocessing is a distinct step
in the compilation process.
> I understand that to write portable code that compiles on
> not-so-intelligent compilers, we may need to do something manually, so
> question 2 is answered, but question 1 still stands...
Does it? Correct, pragmas are not standard, and probably never will
be, due to the difficulty of specifying exactly what it is that
'#pragma once' is supposed to do. (Think of two identical copies of a
header file in different source directories, and a translation unit
that #includes both of them. What is the effect of '#pragma once'
here?) Inclusion safe guards work perfectly well, are
standard-compliant and portable.
\Steve
--
Steve Grägert <steve@graegert.com>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-c-programming" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-20 15:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-06-15 3:43 include guards Shriramana Sharma
2007-06-20 12:43 ` wwp
2007-06-20 15:09 ` Steve Graegert [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=6a00c8d50706200809i7f2f2d7aq9dfe073932535cc0@mail.gmail.com \
--to=graegerts@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-c-programming@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=samjnaa@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).