is this possible

I would strongly recommend putting this stuff in three different files instead.

If you really want to keep on putting all these in a single file, you'll have to encapsulate statements, not blocks or lines:

--- a.c ---
#define TYPE_A(x) x
#define TYPE_B(x) /* nothing */
#define TYPE_C(x) /* nothing */
#include "abc.c"

I would strongly recommend putting this stuff in three different files instead.

If you really want to keep on putting all these in a single file, you'll have to encapsulate statements, not blocks or lines:

--- a.c ---
#define TYPE_A(x) x
#define TYPE_B(x) /* nothing */
#define TYPE_C(x) /* nothing */
#include "abc.c"

I would strongly recommend putting this stuff in three different files instead
Already done where practical.

Erik

you'll have to encapsulate statements, not blocks or lines:

--- a.c ---
#define TYPE_A(x) x
#define TYPE_B(x) /* nothing */
#define TYPE_C(x) /* nothing */

That one I do not understand

That one I do not understand

Strange, given it does exactly what you tried to achieve, just differently enough to get it to work. You wanted to write

TYPEA  code for a;
TYPEB  code for variant b;
TYPEC  code vor variant c;

The macros I've shown allow to do that, but you'll have to spell it a bit differently:

TYPEA(code for a);
TYPEB(code for variant b);
TYPEC(code vor variant c);

and this syntax will pose some constraints on what you can write as "code for ...".

I guess the extra parentheses would be confoosing, i will write a few lines and judge

thanx

Erik

"I would strongly recommend putting this stuff in three different files instead"

"Already done where practical." One idea I have depends on why the separate files are impractical. Could you elaborate, please?

"Already done where practical." One idea I have depends on why the separate files are impractical. Could you elaborate, please?

I have modules that are, say, 80% different fron group a to groupb to groupn and those are in separate modules that the .bat make select based on which of the 47 versions is to be build.

for modules that are, say, 20% different and have very many flavors, maintaining the common code in that many modules would be extremely impractical.

To the greatest extent possible where the difference is, say, a function, that function have been separated out.

The issues where the original query relate are where you have, say a function that is 93% the same, but in minor details is different.

This all relates to a) an inherited project which was a total mess, but now with some use of macros etc i quite a bit cleaner and b) to my new design wher the 'mess' is geatly reduced, but everything can be improved on.

Thanks for the interest

Erik

"The issues where the original query relate are where you have, say a function that is 93% the same, but in minor details is different."

And you want to see the details each variant's 7% difference, just without all the preprocessor conditional directives?

oK, There is a communication problem here, I'll try again.

The system works beautifully and there is no problem except one purely 'administrative':

let me try an example:

Say there is a module with 4 identicallly named functions with slight diffreneces each function is ~100 lines long and enclosed by #ifdef and #endif. I am checking something in another section of the program and come acroos a read of the global varibale "phred". Now I get curious as to where it get written and do a search and, since it get written in the above funtion(s) I get 4 hits:
L11 Phred = 47;
L111 Phred = 48;
L211 Phred = 49;
L311 Phred = 23;

and I have to go hunt for the #ifdefs to see which line apply to the build I am working with

if it was possible (I know it is not, just using it as a descriptor, to have for build b
#define builda //
#define buildb
#define buildc //
#define buildd //

the above search would look like this
L11 builda Phred = 47;
L111 buildb Phred = 48;
L211 buildc Phred = 49;
L311 buildd Phred = 23;

and the process would be simple.

Erik

Knowing that little bit more, I'm going to suggest not altering the code and instead using a source code analysis, browsing, and reverse engineering tool that has the (configurable) ability to ignore inactive code. With this kind of tool, you have it go through the code with the same TYPEA/TYPEB/TYPEx setting that you are currently using and it will record references (var read, var modified, func calls/callby, etc.) only where that TYPEx setting is active. In fact even for unrecorded references, it can search while ignoring inactive code, or only in comments, only statements, or only strings.

See scitools.com/.../features.php

It is for C too, in fact that's how I use it. I don't use its editor, but instead, have added a toolbar button so that when I have found the area of interest, I click the button and it brings up the file in "my favorite editor" with the cursor position at the identical location.

I have used this tool to try to understand the intricacies of client code >500,000 lines over hundreds of source files with approximately 80 #ifdef build/feature options, but I use it for small projects too. It just makes things so much faster. You probably owe it to yourself to use their evaluation for awhile to see what I mean.

thanks, Dan
You probably owe it to yourself to use their evaluation for awhile to see what I mean.
will do next time this hits.

Erik

oK, There is a communication problem here, I'll try again.

Indeed. And I'm afraid I have to state it's on your end of the line. I described a method that would do exactly what you ask for: exactly that file format, and it would work if you just bothered to try --- and what's the reaction? You pull a new problem out of the hat that has nothing to do with what you're asking about.

i agree you did, after the second post I saw how it worked and I posted "I guess the extra parentheses would be confoosing, i will write a few lines and judge"

I am sorry, I should have stated that it was, indeed 'confusing" the extra paranthesises did obfusciate some lines, I fot distracted at the "critical time" and thus did never reply re trying it.

thanks for the suggestion, I am looking for clarity and your suggestion, while providing clarity where I wanted it, muddles certain other things, and to go through a full change of the conditionals to get one gain and an, albeil smaller, loss, does not seem worth it,\.

Thanks for the suggestion, sorry about not giving "the report" sooner.

Erik

PS
You pull a new problem out of the hat
what new problem?

Now you've expanded your reply to my first suggestion, I suggest you re-read my second suggestion more thoroughly (posted 13-Oct-2006 12:23).

I understand the post (13-Oct-2006 12:23) as follows. I read it as "look at something else (a 'sanitized' file) than where you are to do the changes (the 'combined' file)".

If I understand this incorrectly, please explaun further.

Erik

I read it as "look at something else (a 'sanitized' file) than where you are to do the changes (the 'combined' file)".

That's the exact opposite of what I described. You would keep, edit and look-at only one file. Let's call that combined.c-in. It would have exactly the format you wanted from the get-go. Then you would have a build system (batch script, makefile, whatever floats your boat), that builds the three variants like this:

sed -e 's/^TYPEA//' -e 's/^TYPE/\/\/TYPE/' combined.c-in > typeA.c
C51 %options% typea.c
if errorlevel 1 del typeA.c

The overall idea is that only one source file is kept around. But instead of the C preprocessor you use some other tool to select the lines that form one of the three build variants --- I've picked "sed". Removing typeA.c immediately after a succesful compile makes sure that you never accidentally look at the wrong source --- because it simply doesn't exist.