Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #93938

Re: To include or not to include

From Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: To include or not to include
Date 2016-09-23 13:31 +0100
Organization Fix this later
Message-ID <ns37a8$jj$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References <ns2tkb$p0$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 23/09/16 10:45, James Harris wrote:
> I often have at the top of a C source file, which I'll call F, an
> include for its corresponding header:
>
>   #include "F.h"
>
> After that come the various includes I need for the .c code that follows.
>
> In many cases the .c and the .h include some of the same files. They
> might both pull in stdio.h or string.h, for example.
>
> Of course, I could omit from F.c at least some of the headers which F.h
> includes. But I tend to take the approach of including in the .c all
> those the .c code needs.

So do I.

> Assuming either approach is just as valid, which is the best style or is
> one more idiomatic than the other?

If all the relevant headers are idempotent, then there is no technical 
reason not to include all the headers the source needs, in an explicit 
way. Thus, if we have:

/* f.h */
#ifndef F_H__
#define F_H__ 1
#include <stddef.h>
typedef size_t SIZE;
void *firstzerobyte(const void *vp, SIZE len);
#endif
/* end of f.h */

/* f.c */
#include "f.h"
#include <stddef.h> /* whether to include this is the point at issue */

void *firstzerobyte(const void *vp, SIZE len)
{
   SIZE i = 0;
   unsigned char *p = vp;
   if(vp != NULL)
   {
     while(i < len && p[i] != '\0')
     {
       ++i;
       ++p;
     }
   }
   return p;
}
/* end of f.c */

then I would argue that it's better explicitly to include <stddef.h> in 
f.c even though it's included in f.h. It adds a microscopic amount to 
the runtime of the pre-processor phase ("#ifndef - hmm, it's defined, so 
skip lightly through to the #endif'), and nothing to the runtime of the 
program itself, so where's the harm? And the benefit is that, if you 
later rip out the SIZE stuff, you don't have to stick back in all the 
includes you left out because f.h included them.

And if the relevant headers are /not/ idempotent, then why the hell not?

(There is an exception: <assert.h> - but it's only an exception in 
exceptional circumstances, and not something I'd lose any sleep over.)

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

To include or not to include James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 10:45 +0100
  Re: To include or not to include David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-23 12:43 +0200
    Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-23 12:17 +0100
      Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-23 13:32 +0100
        Re: To include or not to include David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-23 14:57 +0200
        Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-24 20:34 +0100
          Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-24 23:55 +0100
            Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-25 01:43 +0100
              Re: To include or not to include Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-25 14:38 +1300
              Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-25 11:42 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-25 11:58 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 14:06 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-25 15:15 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-09-25 23:33 +0800
                Re: To include or not to include Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-09-25 10:04 -0600
                Re: To include or not to include Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-09-26 00:21 +0800
                Re: To include or not to include "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-09-25 13:17 -0400
                Re: To include or not to include James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 00:18 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-26 17:55 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-26 20:07 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-26 12:13 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 01:25 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-26 18:05 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-27 14:27 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-27 14:49 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-27 15:15 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-27 07:42 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-27 09:30 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-27 10:06 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-27 08:12 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-28 10:46 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-27 17:55 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-27 10:19 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-27 11:42 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-27 19:57 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-27 12:38 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-27 21:00 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-28 01:50 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-28 10:55 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-27 13:33 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-09-28 19:13 +0000
                Re: To include or not to include supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-27 12:38 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 20:57 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-27 07:25 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-28 00:28 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-30 07:53 -0700
                Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-30 16:06 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-27 13:53 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 19:46 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-30 20:27 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-09-25 23:27 +0800
                Re: To include or not to include Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-25 11:38 -0400
                Re: To include or not to include Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-09-25 23:40 +0800
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-25 15:06 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-25 11:49 -0400
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-25 18:05 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-25 16:42 -0400
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-25 21:53 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-25 17:57 -0400
                Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-25 21:20 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-25 21:49 +0100
                Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-26 00:40 +0100
      Re: To include or not to include David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-23 14:56 +0200
  Re: To include or not to include Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-23 13:31 +0100
    Re: To include or not to include James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 13:52 +0100
      Re: To include or not to include Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-23 14:35 +0100
    Re: To include or not to include Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-23 18:55 +0100
      Re: To include or not to include Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-23 20:33 +0100
  Re: To include or not to include Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-09-23 08:22 -0600
  Re: To include or not to include Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-09-23 11:37 -0400

csiph-web