Talk:Variadic macro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Computing  
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It should be said how the user (= body of the function) accesses to (possibly existing) extra arguments and their number. MFH: Talk 19:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

now you (Akihabara) added "no means is provided...", although I somehow remember some trick to find it out (but I stopped doing tricky things in C about 10 years ago...) - but maybe the tricks I used then are too tricky to be mentioned officially...(kindof calculations with stack pointers, return adresses sneaked from the stack, memory addresses of passed parameters, etc.etc.) - but wasn't there some simple (and official) VA_NUM_ARGS() macro or so? MFH: Talk 19:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

No. There may be compiler extensions, but there is no way for the macro itself to find out. Note this has nothing to do with stacks; you may be getting confused with variadic functions --Akihabara 22:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The page says "Previous versions of Visual Studio lack this feature", but I'm compiling some variadic macros in VS 2003. --anon

more arguments[edit]

What happens if you use dprintf("Hello, world", "another string", foo, i);? That is: using a variadic macro with a different number of variables. That's what the variadic macros are good for, right? I don't see how this is supposed to work. --Abdull 09:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The stdarg.h article describes how it works. . --Abdull 09:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

fewer arguments[edit]

It's worth mentioning the necessity to pass at least one argument to fill the '...' slot, distinct from variadic functions. In the variadic case C99 demands more arguments than identifiers in the definition (see ISO/EOC9899:TC3 6.10.3 constraint 4), but compilers often allow zero extra arguments. Even so, if __VA_ARGS__ is allowed to expand to an empty string then an expression like

#define dprintf(fmt, ...) realdprintf(__FILE__, __LINE__, fmt, __VA_ARGS__)
dprintf("Hello, world");

would expand to

realdprintf("example.c", 123, "Hello, world", );

where a trailing comma is left in the argument list. -- (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And the Microsoft C/C++ compiler caters for that case by dropping the trailing comma [1]
Yes, we probably should add this to the article somehow...
Mark Hurd (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is wrong. The preprocessor does NOTHING to fix the dangling comma if you have no variadic arguments. GCC and VC++ have extensions to fix it, but the standard does not. You need at least one argument. The workaround is to just specify all arguments as variadic:

  1. define foo(...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed o11c (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The 'impossible example' section is wrong and doesn't respect the encyclopedic style:

- The definition of MYLOG doesn't even use #define

- The expansion of

MYLOG("Too many balloons %u", 42);

isn't right, it doesn't even include the __FILE__ and __LINE__ values.

- The line "There's no way to fix this behaviour!" doesn't belong in wikipedia (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Not an ellipsis[edit]

The article says an ellipsis is used to declare a variadic macro. This is wrong. A variadic macro is declared with three dots ("...", or "\u002E\u002E\u002E"), not with an ellipsis ("…" or "\u2026"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)