http://embeddedgurus.com/barr-code/2009/04/coding-standard-rule-9-dont-create-function-like-macros/ A Blog by Michael Barr Fri, 18 May 2012 17:16:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://embeddedgurus.com/barr-code/2009/04/coding-standard-rule-9-dont-create-function-like-macros/comment-page-1/#comment-47 ananth Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:53:40 +0000 http://www.gfcdev.org/test-stack/2009/04/03/coding-standard-rule-9-dont-create-function-like-macros/#comment-47 Hi Bryce,A newbie question. Why would a compiler not allow inline functions for the example that you have cited? Explanation with some more detail would really help clarify the point further.Ananth Hi Bryce,A newbie question. Why would a compiler not allow inline functions for the example that you have cited? Explanation with some more detail would really help clarify the point further.Ananth

]]> http://embeddedgurus.com/barr-code/2009/04/coding-standard-rule-9-dont-create-function-like-macros/comment-page-1/#comment-46 Michael Barr Tue, 07 Apr 2009 20:42:00 +0000 http://www.gfcdev.org/test-stack/2009/04/03/coding-standard-rule-9-dont-create-function-like-macros/#comment-46 More info from Bryce (via e-mail exchange):A simple example would be conversions to a non-human-readable format at compile time, like:const int pitch_limit = DEG_2_BINCIRC( 10 );I don't think any compiler will let you use an inline function for that, which is why I have inline functions *and* function-style macros for things like fixed-point conversions and such. I suppose this is just one of those circumstances in which an inline function can't accomplish the same task, but it's a pretty significant one to me. More info from Bryce (via e-mail exchange):A simple example would be conversions to a non-human-readable format at compile time, like:const int pitch_limit = DEG_2_BINCIRC( 10 );I don’t think any compiler will let you use an inline function for that, which is why I have inline functions *and* function-style macros for things like fixed-point conversions and such. I suppose this is just one of those circumstances in which an inline function can’t accomplish the same task, but it’s a pretty significant one to me.

]]> http://embeddedgurus.com/barr-code/2009/04/coding-standard-rule-9-dont-create-function-like-macros/comment-page-1/#comment-45 Bryce Schober Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:50:00 +0000 http://www.gfcdev.org/test-stack/2009/04/03/coding-standard-rule-9-dont-create-function-like-macros/#comment-45 What about static and constant initializations that need to respond to various configurations at compile time? I would rather have function-style macros for that purpose than magic numbers. In fact, you can make function-style macros *almost* as safe as inline functions, but it does take a heck of a lot more work. And once you have (using local variables, manual type-checking, etc.), you won't be able to use it for static and constant initialization anymore. What about static and constant initializations that need to respond to various configurations at compile time? I would rather have function-style macros for that purpose than magic numbers. In fact, you can make function-style macros *almost* as safe as inline functions, but it does take a heck of a lot more work. And once you have (using local variables, manual type-checking, etc.), you won’t be able to use it for static and constant initialization anymore.

]]>