I have the following macro:What does the line containing only # mean? Is F(()) a usage of the macro?Technically, that's not part of the macro (no continuation line before it). It's a directive that comes after the #define directive.
I'm reading the Standard N1570 about macro replacement and misunderstand some wording from 126.96.36.199.
I'm trying to create some examples of using (experimental) macros this way:This creates and runs the macro, and then checks if one of the variable defined exists. But I get this error:
This code that uses (experimental) macros:Fails with Variable '$a' is not declared, although the macro passes through without an error. If that's a correct macro declaration, what does it do? If it's not, is there a way to define new variables from within a macro?
I have 100 structs that look something like this:I want to find the largest sizeof from among these structs at compile time. I tried using a comparison macro like this:
Related to questions How do I check for C++11 support? and What is the value of __cplusplus for C++17?
I want to create a macro that replaces all calls to printf, more specifically mbedtls_printf (which behaves the exact sameway as printf) with nothing.
I am trying to practise creating macros in Common Lisp by creating a simple += macro and an iterate macro. I have managed to create the += macro easily enough and I am using it within my iterate macro, which I am having a couple of issues with. When I...
This is another case of trying to get rid of a macro. Consider(Imagine f_() gets data form a .foo file or uses hard-coded "dummy" values, g_() does the same for .bar.) There might be a function to decide which overload to call:
How do I know whether I'm calling an anaphoric macro? If I do so without knowing it, some seemingly unbound symbols might behave quite different from what one would expect.