Re^3: Introducing the C Perl-Powered Pre-Processor

That "rather ugly" one looks actually quite neat!

I was over-egging the pudding a bit, for humorous(?) effect. Within the PDL-o-sphere, its DSL makes it quite close to fun to write n-dimensional loops. It has some slightly deranged, borderline "cpp abuse" levels of macro to generate per-supported-type code within proper C code (PDL_GENERICSWITCH et al if you're interested), and PDL has infrastructure to generate one version of given "code" per supported type.

The above results in something a bit like, but more deranged and worse than, https://github.com/rofl0r/order-pp/blob/master/example/array_ops.c

I keep thinking that there are various parts of PDL that would work as standalone parts, and the type-generic stuff is one. Probably a different direction from what your tool enables.

Comment on Re^3: Introducing the C Perl-Powered Pre-Processor

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Introducing the C Perl-Powered Pre-Processor by NERDVANA (Priest) on May 13, 2024 at 22:16 UTC
One of the problems with the crazy nesting of macros (other than understanding how they fit together) is trying to trace through it in the debugger :-) So your example is exactly the sort of case where I think cpppp would help. Instead of a header file full of crazy macros, you'd have a cpppp template module which you could call from other code, and the output would be plain old readable C code that you then feed to the compiler and have an easy debugging session.	[reply]
Re^5: Introducing the C Perl-Powered Pre-Processor by etj (Priest) on May 14, 2024 at 12:39 UTC
That's a problem I'm aware of, having occasionally needed to use a non-printf style of debugging (though mainly to get a stack trace, it's still relevant). If the C compiler were to annotate the source-line information better for debugging symbols, this sort of thing would not be a problem. I have contemplated fixing this in the two major FOSS C compilers (gcc and clang), since that would then let me shorten PDL-generated C code even more by having a macro for the repeated "Code" part, but I have not yet done so.	[reply]