The behavior of C macros is actually described by a piece of pseudocode from Dave Prosser and it is not in the standard:

* https://www.spinellis.gr/blog/20060626/

* https://www.spinellis.gr/pubs/jrnl/2006-DDJ-Finessing/html/S...

* https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-prs/2001-q1/msg00495.html

I think the C preprocessor was designed after the GPM clone m6, its successor m4, and Ratfor, so I suspect the difficulty in doing things like this is intentional. I guess I should ask McIlroy, who is responsible for pushing m4 to its absolute limits and was present when the C preprocessor was being designed: https://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~doug/barem4.m4

    _        Pure macros as a programming language
    _
    _ m4 is Turing complete even when stripped to the bare minimum
    _ of one builtin: `define'. This is not news; Christopher
    _ Strachey demonstrated it in his ancestral GPM, described in
    _ "A general- purpose macrogenerator", The Computer Journal 8
    _ (1965) 225-241.
    _
    _ This m4 program more fully illustrates universality by
    _ building familiar programming capabilities: unlimited
    _ precision integer arithmetic, boolean algebra, conditional
    _ execution, case-switching, and some higher-level operators
    _ from functional programming. In support of these normal
    _ facilities, however, the program exploits some unusual
    _ programming idioms:
    _ 
    _ 1. Case-switching via macro names constructed on the fly.
    _ 2. Equality testing by redefining macros.
    _ 3. Representing data structures by nested parenthesized lists.
    _ 4. Using macros as associative memory.
    _ 5. Inserting nested parameter symbols on the fly.
    _
    _ Idioms 2 and 5 are "reflective": the program writes code
    _ for itself.

Related: The Preprocessor Iceberg https://jadlevesque.github.io/PPMP-Iceberg/

There you can find a recursive macro expansion implementation (as a gcc hack) that fits on a slide:

  #2""3
  
  #define PRAGMA(...) _Pragma(#__VA_ARGS__)
  #define REVIVE(m) PRAGMA(push_macro(#m))PRAGMA(pop_macro(#m))
  #define DEC(n,...) (__VA_ARGS__)
  #define FX(f,x) REVIVE(FX) f x
  #define HOW_MANY_ARGS(...) REVIVE(HOW_MANY_ARGS) \
      __VA_OPT__(+1 FX(HOW_MANY_ARGS, DEC(__VA_ARGS__)))
  
  int main () {
      printf("%i", HOW_MANY_ARGS(1,2,3,4,5)); // 5
  }

I did the first week of AOC22 in the C preprocessor: https://github.com/camel-cdr/boline/tree/main/aoc22

One can also (ab)use the build system to run arbitrary preprocessing steps with any language over the "C" input. You can have recursive macros by using M4 or Perl or Python or some other language to expand them, converting your "foo.c.in" into a "foo.c" to hand off to the C preprocessor & compiler. It still feels dirty, but it's often much easier to understand & debug.

I wonder if the author is aware of the __VA_TAIL__ proposal[1], it covered similar grounds and IMO very well thought out, but unfortunately not accepted into C2Y (judging from committee meeting minutes).

[1] https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3307.htm

genuinely remarkable, the altogether perhaps even productive mischief you can get up to, especially with `__VA_OPT__` becoming a proper standard in both C and C++ so you don't have to feel dirty about using it.

i recently made use of plenty of ugly tricks in this vein to take a single authoritative table of macro invocations that defined a bunch of pixel formats, and make them graduate from defining bitfield structs to classes with accessors that performed good old fashioned shifts and masks, all without ever specifying the individual bit offsets of channels, just their individual widths, and macro magic did the rest. no templates, no actual c++, could just as feasibly produce pure c bindings down the line by just changing a few names.

getting really into this stuff makes you stop thinking of c function-like macros as functions of their arguments as such, but rather unary functions of argument lists, where arity roughly becomes the one notion vaguely akin to typing in the whole enterprise, or at least the one place where the compiler exhibits behaviour resembling that of a type checker. this was especially true considering the entries in the table i wound up with were variadic, terminating in variably many (name, width) parenthesised tuples. and i just... had the means to "uncons" them so to speak. fun stuff.

this is worth it, imo, in precisely one context, which is: you want a single source of truth that defines fiddly but formulaic implementations spread across multiple files that must remain coordinated, and this is something you do infrequently enough that you don't consider it worthwhile introducing "real" "big boy" code gen into your build process. mind, you usually do end up having to commit to a little utility header that defines convenient macros (_Ex and such in the article), but hey. c'est la vie. basically x macros (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_macro) on heart attack quantities of steroids.

I wept when the author mentioned implementing SHA256 in macros.

In many ways being limited ends up being a feature. Even limited as it is, you get some crimes against humanity like the bourne shell source, but at least most people agree it is a bad idea

If it allowed more unlimited metaprogramming, building big complex things as macros might well have become popular

    #define _H4X0R_CONVERT_ONE(arg)                  \
        ((union { unsigned long long u; void *v; }){ \
            .u = (unsigned long long)arg,           \
    }).v

    #define _H4X0R_CONVERT_ONE(arg) (void*)(uintptr_t)(arg)

Also, thanks, now I can finally use

    void my_printf(const char *fmt, void* args[], size_t argc);
    

    #define my_printf(fmt, ...) (my_printf)((fmt), \
        (void*[]){ H4X0R_VA_VOID_STAR_CONVERT(__VA_ARGS__) }, \
        H4X0R_VA_COUNT(__VA_ARGS__))

    int main(int argc, char **argv) {
        my_printf("int: %d, ptr: %p, str: %s, missing: %d\n", 42, argv, "Hello world!");
    }

    $ gcc test.c && ./a.out
    int: 42, ptr: 0x7FFF46AA3E78, str: Hello world!, missing: %!d(MISSING)

The lack of (easy) recursion in CPP is so frustrating because it was always available in assembly languages with even very old and very simple macro assemblers- with the caveat that the recursion depth was often very limited, and no tail call elimination. For example, if you need to fill memory:

    ; Fill memory with backward sequence
    macro fill n
        word n
        if n != 0
            fill n - 1
        endif
    endm

    So "fill 3" expands to:
        word 3
        word 2
        word 1
        word 0

The other assembly language feature that I missed is the ability to switch sections. This is useful for building tables in a distributed fashion. Luckily you can do it with gcc.

I've ready the article 4 times already today and I'm still crying. This looks like the solution to a problem I'm having (C++, but I'm doing things that templates and constexpr can't do), but trying to get it all to work is painful. Kudos to the author at making an attempt to explain it.

A simpler explanation of the technique in the article that I believe matches the C standard more closely is the following.

Ideally the result of processing a macro ("macro-replacement") would contain no further macros. But in order to disallow infinite loops during processing of a macro, the C standard specifies that names of macros that would be processed recursively are instead painted blue ("marked") so as to never be processed.

The technique in the article hinges on the fact that macro-replacement, as specified in the C standard, allows not only for the result of macro-replacement to contain these marked do-not-process macros, but also unmarked unprocessed macros. Specifically, such an unmarked unprocessed macro is a functional macro arising after processing a macro with an empty definition that separates the functional macro's name from its arguments.

The technique for achieving recrusive macros is to introduce a functional macro whose definition is the would-be recursive macro, and to replace each occurence of the name of the would-be recursive macro in its own defintion with the functional macro interrupted by an macro with an empty definition.

The result is an unmarked unprocessed recursive macro. Processing such a recursive macro, e.g. by including it as an argument to a macro, corresponds to taking one step of the recursion. Thus any pre-determined finite number of steps of a recurisvely defined macro can be performed.

For example, the would-be recursive macro of the article

#define _COUNT_ONE(x, ...) + 1 _COUNT_TOP(__VA_ARGS__)

#define _COUNT_TOP(...) __VA_OPT__(_COUNT_ONE(__VA_ARGS__))

#define COUNT(...) (_COUNT_TOP(__VA_ARGS__) + 0)

becomes

#define EMPTY

#define _COUNT_INDIRECT() _COUNT_ONE

#define _COUNT_ONE(x, ...) + 1 _COUNT_TOP(__VA_ARGS__)

#define _COUNT_TOP(...) __VA_OPT__(_COUNT_INDIRECT EMPTY()(__VA_ARGS__))

#define COUNT(...) (_COUNT_TOP(__VA_ARGS__) + 0)

To process the COUNT(...) macro 5 times, allowing it to count up to 5 variable arguments, nest it 5 levels deep as an argument to a macro.

#define EVAL1(...) __VA_ARGS__

#define EVAL5(...) EVAL1(EVAL1(EVAL1(EVAL1(EVAL1))))

EVAL5(COUNT(1,2,3))

Imagine trying to implement the C preprocessor. I had to write it from scratch 3 times before it worked 100%.

Mildly related, sort of, one can prevent expansion of variadic macros as follows:

   #define printf(...)

   int (printf)(const char *, ...);

Macro is one of the ugliest features available in langs like C/CPP

> C has many advantages that have led to its longevity (60 years as perhaps the most important language).

53 years by my count. Did something relevant happen in 1960? Maybe author is alluding to B?

A C preprocessor implemented in Python: https://github.com/paulross/cpip

I used to write a preprocessor until I noticed those kind of thing...I stopped writing it after that

Can I use this technique to expand MACRO(a,b,c,…) into something like F(a,b,c…); G(a,b,c…)?

Is this a DoS risk - code that sends your build chain into an infinite loop?

The c pre processor. C doesn't have macros. It's fucking miserable. Anyone who uses it is a masochist