Why include guards?











up vote
14
down vote

favorite












Include guards, as defined here, are used to prevent loading the same code twice at compilation.



Why can't my compiler (GCC) detect that it is loading the same code twice and have a sensible default behaviour?










share|improve this question




















  • 5




    Some people do intentionally include the same file twice (where the second inclusion has a real effect). This works, this is valid, so changing this would break existing code.
    – user743382
    Jan 13 '14 at 11:25

















up vote
14
down vote

favorite












Include guards, as defined here, are used to prevent loading the same code twice at compilation.



Why can't my compiler (GCC) detect that it is loading the same code twice and have a sensible default behaviour?










share|improve this question




















  • 5




    Some people do intentionally include the same file twice (where the second inclusion has a real effect). This works, this is valid, so changing this would break existing code.
    – user743382
    Jan 13 '14 at 11:25















up vote
14
down vote

favorite









up vote
14
down vote

favorite











Include guards, as defined here, are used to prevent loading the same code twice at compilation.



Why can't my compiler (GCC) detect that it is loading the same code twice and have a sensible default behaviour?










share|improve this question















Include guards, as defined here, are used to prevent loading the same code twice at compilation.



Why can't my compiler (GCC) detect that it is loading the same code twice and have a sensible default behaviour?







c++ c gcc compiler-construction preprocessor






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday









mrflash818

6361018




6361018










asked Jan 13 '14 at 11:22









ximus

10219




10219








  • 5




    Some people do intentionally include the same file twice (where the second inclusion has a real effect). This works, this is valid, so changing this would break existing code.
    – user743382
    Jan 13 '14 at 11:25
















  • 5




    Some people do intentionally include the same file twice (where the second inclusion has a real effect). This works, this is valid, so changing this would break existing code.
    – user743382
    Jan 13 '14 at 11:25










5




5




Some people do intentionally include the same file twice (where the second inclusion has a real effect). This works, this is valid, so changing this would break existing code.
– user743382
Jan 13 '14 at 11:25






Some people do intentionally include the same file twice (where the second inclusion has a real effect). This works, this is valid, so changing this would break existing code.
– user743382
Jan 13 '14 at 11:25














7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
17
down vote



accepted










Simply because you might have wanted the compiler to load that file twice.



Remember, that #include simply loads a file and puts its contents in the place of the directive. This file might be a header file, but may be useful and frequently used piece of source code as well.



Most modern compilers react to #pragma once doing exactly what you want them to. Remember though, that this is a compiler extension not included in the language specification and it is generally a good idea to stick to include guards - you'll be certain, that it works on every compiler and in any circumstances.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    Re #pragma once: it's not 100% reliable, so you still need include guards.
    – James Kanze
    Jan 13 '14 at 11:31










  • @JamesKanze - What do you want to say by "not 100% reliable"?
    – Spook
    Jan 13 '14 at 11:36






  • 2




    That there are cases when it is impossible to detect whether two includes refer to the same file or not. They don't occur in simple, stand alone systems (at least not that I know of), but can (and in practice do, albeit rarely) occur once you start networking. The committee actually discussed making #pragma once standard, and rejected it because it wasn't (reliably) implementable.
    – James Kanze
    Jan 13 '14 at 11:39










  • @JamesKanze Ok, may be worth noticing.
    – Spook
    Jan 13 '14 at 11:45






  • 2




    @Roddy Not just from symbolic links---at least under Unix, there are ways of working around this. But when an imported file system is mounted at two different places. (Strangely enough, this happens more often than one might expect.)
    – James Kanze
    Jan 13 '14 at 13:03


















up vote
11
down vote














Why can't my compiler (GCC) detect that it is loading the same code twice




It can (or, pedantically, the preprocessor that deals with header inclusion can). Instead of using include guards, you could use a non-standard but widely supported extension



#pragma once


to indicate that this header should only be included once.




and have a sensible default behaviour?




The language doesn't specify this behaviour by default, largely because the language dates back to times when tracking included headers could be prohibitively expensive, and partly because sometimes you do want to include a header more than once. For example, the standard <assert.h> header can be reincluded with or without NDEBUG defined to change the behaviour of the assert macro.






share|improve this answer























  • #pragma once is a preprocessor feature though, not a compiler feature.
    – datenwolf
    Jan 13 '14 at 11:29










  • @datenwolf: Indeed, if you want to regard the first few translation stages as "preprocessing".
    – Mike Seymour
    Jan 13 '14 at 11:29






  • 1




    @datenwolf: That's irrelevant to this question about basic compilation, where all that matters is that it's part of the translation process, which we might as well loosely call "compilation", but I've added a note that might keep some pedants happy.
    – Mike Seymour
    Jan 13 '14 at 11:32








  • 1




    @datenwolf By whom? The standard specifies a total of 9 steps in program translation. The term "preprocessor" is a colloquial expression (not exact) for the first 6.
    – James Kanze
    Jan 13 '14 at 11:34






  • 1




    @datenwolf What compiler runs the preprocessor as a separate process? (Not that it matters, of course. g++, and probably a lot of other compilers, run the front-end, the optimizer and the back-end as separate processes.)
    – James Kanze
    Jan 13 '14 at 11:35




















up vote
9
down vote













Because there are bizarre edge cases where re-including a file is useful.



Contrived ugly example: Suppose you had an #include file mymin.h like this:



// mymin.h : ugly "pseudo-template" hack
MINTYPE min(MINTYPE a, MINTYPE b)
{
return (a < b) ? a : b;
}


You could then do something like this:



#define MINTYPE int
#include "mymin.h"

#define MINTYPE double
#include "mymin.h"


Now, you have two overloads of min for different types, and a good candidate for http://thedailywtf.com/. Who needs templates? ;-)



Note that lots of modern preprocessors support #pragma once, which is a much nicer way of achieving the same effect as include guards. However, it's unfortunately non-standard.






share|improve this answer























  • in this case why don't #define both A and B before including the header?
    – phuclv
    Jan 13 '14 at 12:53










  • @LưuVĩnhPhúc _ I did warn it was contrived... It's just to illustrate that re-includeing a file could have a different effect each time.
    – Roddy
    Jan 13 '14 at 12:59












  • @LưuVĩnhPhúc - I've changed the "example". but this is still a case of "don't try this at home".
    – Roddy
    Jan 13 '14 at 13:22


















up vote
4
down vote














Why can't my compiler (GCC) detect that it is loading the same code twice and have a sensible default behaviour?




Because it's not the compiler doing the include processing. It's done by the preprocessor which is essentially a text transformation engine. And for text transformation engine it can make perfect sense if the same include appears multiple times when processing a piece of text.



Let sink this in for a moment: The compiler does not process #includes. This is what makes it impossible to make sensible decisions on symbol redefinitions by the compiler.



Other languages implement modules as a part of the language, and in those languages things are not processed as a text substitution and the compiler actually has knowledge about the import semantics.






share|improve this answer




























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Include guards protect against symbol redefinition and including the same files multiple times.



    The compiler needs this mechanism because for obvious reasons, it does not include a mechanism to analyze and decide which code version to consider. Think of what would happen if the same function signature in two different header files only the return type is different.



    Assuming the content is exactly the same only it's included from multiple headers, The compiler would require extra computing power and memory to keep track of the code it already included.



    So it would be error prone and inneficient






    share|improve this answer






























      up vote
      0
      down vote














      Why can't my compiler (GCC) detect that it is loading the same code twice and have a sensible default behaviour?




      Because then it wouldn't be a C compiler. The language is specified such that #include creates a textual transclusion, and doing something different to the specification would break valid code.



      The obvious follow-up question, "could we change the C Standard?" still has to find some way to avoid the same breakage of existing valid code.



      One thing a compiler could legitimately do is to emit a warning when a non-empty (after processing #ifdef and the like) file is multiply included without some indicator that it's intentional. If you're sufficiently motivated, perhaps you could prepare a suitable patch for your favourite compiler(s)?



      BTW, you'll find that the problem gets very hard as soon as you have to come up with a good robust definition of "same code".






      share|improve this answer






























        up vote
        -1
        down vote













        Even if compiler decides to do that, it needs to keep track of huge number of files, and many times (as commented by itwasntpete), compiler has no way to distinguish between actual code and header file.






        share|improve this answer

















        • 4




          Makes no sense. It's got to keep track of the same number of #defines for the header guards...
          – Roddy
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:27











        Your Answer






        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
        StackExchange.snippets.init();
        });
        });
        }, "code-snippets");

        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "1"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        convertImagesToLinks: true,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: 10,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });














         

        draft saved


        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f21090041%2fwhy-include-guards%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        7 Answers
        7






        active

        oldest

        votes








        7 Answers
        7






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes








        up vote
        17
        down vote



        accepted










        Simply because you might have wanted the compiler to load that file twice.



        Remember, that #include simply loads a file and puts its contents in the place of the directive. This file might be a header file, but may be useful and frequently used piece of source code as well.



        Most modern compilers react to #pragma once doing exactly what you want them to. Remember though, that this is a compiler extension not included in the language specification and it is generally a good idea to stick to include guards - you'll be certain, that it works on every compiler and in any circumstances.






        share|improve this answer



















        • 1




          Re #pragma once: it's not 100% reliable, so you still need include guards.
          – James Kanze
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:31










        • @JamesKanze - What do you want to say by "not 100% reliable"?
          – Spook
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:36






        • 2




          That there are cases when it is impossible to detect whether two includes refer to the same file or not. They don't occur in simple, stand alone systems (at least not that I know of), but can (and in practice do, albeit rarely) occur once you start networking. The committee actually discussed making #pragma once standard, and rejected it because it wasn't (reliably) implementable.
          – James Kanze
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:39










        • @JamesKanze Ok, may be worth noticing.
          – Spook
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:45






        • 2




          @Roddy Not just from symbolic links---at least under Unix, there are ways of working around this. But when an imported file system is mounted at two different places. (Strangely enough, this happens more often than one might expect.)
          – James Kanze
          Jan 13 '14 at 13:03















        up vote
        17
        down vote



        accepted










        Simply because you might have wanted the compiler to load that file twice.



        Remember, that #include simply loads a file and puts its contents in the place of the directive. This file might be a header file, but may be useful and frequently used piece of source code as well.



        Most modern compilers react to #pragma once doing exactly what you want them to. Remember though, that this is a compiler extension not included in the language specification and it is generally a good idea to stick to include guards - you'll be certain, that it works on every compiler and in any circumstances.






        share|improve this answer



















        • 1




          Re #pragma once: it's not 100% reliable, so you still need include guards.
          – James Kanze
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:31










        • @JamesKanze - What do you want to say by "not 100% reliable"?
          – Spook
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:36






        • 2




          That there are cases when it is impossible to detect whether two includes refer to the same file or not. They don't occur in simple, stand alone systems (at least not that I know of), but can (and in practice do, albeit rarely) occur once you start networking. The committee actually discussed making #pragma once standard, and rejected it because it wasn't (reliably) implementable.
          – James Kanze
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:39










        • @JamesKanze Ok, may be worth noticing.
          – Spook
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:45






        • 2




          @Roddy Not just from symbolic links---at least under Unix, there are ways of working around this. But when an imported file system is mounted at two different places. (Strangely enough, this happens more often than one might expect.)
          – James Kanze
          Jan 13 '14 at 13:03













        up vote
        17
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        17
        down vote



        accepted






        Simply because you might have wanted the compiler to load that file twice.



        Remember, that #include simply loads a file and puts its contents in the place of the directive. This file might be a header file, but may be useful and frequently used piece of source code as well.



        Most modern compilers react to #pragma once doing exactly what you want them to. Remember though, that this is a compiler extension not included in the language specification and it is generally a good idea to stick to include guards - you'll be certain, that it works on every compiler and in any circumstances.






        share|improve this answer














        Simply because you might have wanted the compiler to load that file twice.



        Remember, that #include simply loads a file and puts its contents in the place of the directive. This file might be a header file, but may be useful and frequently used piece of source code as well.



        Most modern compilers react to #pragma once doing exactly what you want them to. Remember though, that this is a compiler extension not included in the language specification and it is generally a good idea to stick to include guards - you'll be certain, that it works on every compiler and in any circumstances.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Jan 13 '14 at 11:47

























        answered Jan 13 '14 at 11:27









        Spook

        16k1063111




        16k1063111








        • 1




          Re #pragma once: it's not 100% reliable, so you still need include guards.
          – James Kanze
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:31










        • @JamesKanze - What do you want to say by "not 100% reliable"?
          – Spook
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:36






        • 2




          That there are cases when it is impossible to detect whether two includes refer to the same file or not. They don't occur in simple, stand alone systems (at least not that I know of), but can (and in practice do, albeit rarely) occur once you start networking. The committee actually discussed making #pragma once standard, and rejected it because it wasn't (reliably) implementable.
          – James Kanze
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:39










        • @JamesKanze Ok, may be worth noticing.
          – Spook
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:45






        • 2




          @Roddy Not just from symbolic links---at least under Unix, there are ways of working around this. But when an imported file system is mounted at two different places. (Strangely enough, this happens more often than one might expect.)
          – James Kanze
          Jan 13 '14 at 13:03














        • 1




          Re #pragma once: it's not 100% reliable, so you still need include guards.
          – James Kanze
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:31










        • @JamesKanze - What do you want to say by "not 100% reliable"?
          – Spook
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:36






        • 2




          That there are cases when it is impossible to detect whether two includes refer to the same file or not. They don't occur in simple, stand alone systems (at least not that I know of), but can (and in practice do, albeit rarely) occur once you start networking. The committee actually discussed making #pragma once standard, and rejected it because it wasn't (reliably) implementable.
          – James Kanze
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:39










        • @JamesKanze Ok, may be worth noticing.
          – Spook
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:45






        • 2




          @Roddy Not just from symbolic links---at least under Unix, there are ways of working around this. But when an imported file system is mounted at two different places. (Strangely enough, this happens more often than one might expect.)
          – James Kanze
          Jan 13 '14 at 13:03








        1




        1




        Re #pragma once: it's not 100% reliable, so you still need include guards.
        – James Kanze
        Jan 13 '14 at 11:31




        Re #pragma once: it's not 100% reliable, so you still need include guards.
        – James Kanze
        Jan 13 '14 at 11:31












        @JamesKanze - What do you want to say by "not 100% reliable"?
        – Spook
        Jan 13 '14 at 11:36




        @JamesKanze - What do you want to say by "not 100% reliable"?
        – Spook
        Jan 13 '14 at 11:36




        2




        2




        That there are cases when it is impossible to detect whether two includes refer to the same file or not. They don't occur in simple, stand alone systems (at least not that I know of), but can (and in practice do, albeit rarely) occur once you start networking. The committee actually discussed making #pragma once standard, and rejected it because it wasn't (reliably) implementable.
        – James Kanze
        Jan 13 '14 at 11:39




        That there are cases when it is impossible to detect whether two includes refer to the same file or not. They don't occur in simple, stand alone systems (at least not that I know of), but can (and in practice do, albeit rarely) occur once you start networking. The committee actually discussed making #pragma once standard, and rejected it because it wasn't (reliably) implementable.
        – James Kanze
        Jan 13 '14 at 11:39












        @JamesKanze Ok, may be worth noticing.
        – Spook
        Jan 13 '14 at 11:45




        @JamesKanze Ok, may be worth noticing.
        – Spook
        Jan 13 '14 at 11:45




        2




        2




        @Roddy Not just from symbolic links---at least under Unix, there are ways of working around this. But when an imported file system is mounted at two different places. (Strangely enough, this happens more often than one might expect.)
        – James Kanze
        Jan 13 '14 at 13:03




        @Roddy Not just from symbolic links---at least under Unix, there are ways of working around this. But when an imported file system is mounted at two different places. (Strangely enough, this happens more often than one might expect.)
        – James Kanze
        Jan 13 '14 at 13:03












        up vote
        11
        down vote














        Why can't my compiler (GCC) detect that it is loading the same code twice




        It can (or, pedantically, the preprocessor that deals with header inclusion can). Instead of using include guards, you could use a non-standard but widely supported extension



        #pragma once


        to indicate that this header should only be included once.




        and have a sensible default behaviour?




        The language doesn't specify this behaviour by default, largely because the language dates back to times when tracking included headers could be prohibitively expensive, and partly because sometimes you do want to include a header more than once. For example, the standard <assert.h> header can be reincluded with or without NDEBUG defined to change the behaviour of the assert macro.






        share|improve this answer























        • #pragma once is a preprocessor feature though, not a compiler feature.
          – datenwolf
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:29










        • @datenwolf: Indeed, if you want to regard the first few translation stages as "preprocessing".
          – Mike Seymour
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:29






        • 1




          @datenwolf: That's irrelevant to this question about basic compilation, where all that matters is that it's part of the translation process, which we might as well loosely call "compilation", but I've added a note that might keep some pedants happy.
          – Mike Seymour
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:32








        • 1




          @datenwolf By whom? The standard specifies a total of 9 steps in program translation. The term "preprocessor" is a colloquial expression (not exact) for the first 6.
          – James Kanze
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:34






        • 1




          @datenwolf What compiler runs the preprocessor as a separate process? (Not that it matters, of course. g++, and probably a lot of other compilers, run the front-end, the optimizer and the back-end as separate processes.)
          – James Kanze
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:35

















        up vote
        11
        down vote














        Why can't my compiler (GCC) detect that it is loading the same code twice




        It can (or, pedantically, the preprocessor that deals with header inclusion can). Instead of using include guards, you could use a non-standard but widely supported extension



        #pragma once


        to indicate that this header should only be included once.




        and have a sensible default behaviour?




        The language doesn't specify this behaviour by default, largely because the language dates back to times when tracking included headers could be prohibitively expensive, and partly because sometimes you do want to include a header more than once. For example, the standard <assert.h> header can be reincluded with or without NDEBUG defined to change the behaviour of the assert macro.






        share|improve this answer























        • #pragma once is a preprocessor feature though, not a compiler feature.
          – datenwolf
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:29










        • @datenwolf: Indeed, if you want to regard the first few translation stages as "preprocessing".
          – Mike Seymour
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:29






        • 1




          @datenwolf: That's irrelevant to this question about basic compilation, where all that matters is that it's part of the translation process, which we might as well loosely call "compilation", but I've added a note that might keep some pedants happy.
          – Mike Seymour
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:32








        • 1




          @datenwolf By whom? The standard specifies a total of 9 steps in program translation. The term "preprocessor" is a colloquial expression (not exact) for the first 6.
          – James Kanze
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:34






        • 1




          @datenwolf What compiler runs the preprocessor as a separate process? (Not that it matters, of course. g++, and probably a lot of other compilers, run the front-end, the optimizer and the back-end as separate processes.)
          – James Kanze
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:35















        up vote
        11
        down vote










        up vote
        11
        down vote










        Why can't my compiler (GCC) detect that it is loading the same code twice




        It can (or, pedantically, the preprocessor that deals with header inclusion can). Instead of using include guards, you could use a non-standard but widely supported extension



        #pragma once


        to indicate that this header should only be included once.




        and have a sensible default behaviour?




        The language doesn't specify this behaviour by default, largely because the language dates back to times when tracking included headers could be prohibitively expensive, and partly because sometimes you do want to include a header more than once. For example, the standard <assert.h> header can be reincluded with or without NDEBUG defined to change the behaviour of the assert macro.






        share|improve this answer















        Why can't my compiler (GCC) detect that it is loading the same code twice




        It can (or, pedantically, the preprocessor that deals with header inclusion can). Instead of using include guards, you could use a non-standard but widely supported extension



        #pragma once


        to indicate that this header should only be included once.




        and have a sensible default behaviour?




        The language doesn't specify this behaviour by default, largely because the language dates back to times when tracking included headers could be prohibitively expensive, and partly because sometimes you do want to include a header more than once. For example, the standard <assert.h> header can be reincluded with or without NDEBUG defined to change the behaviour of the assert macro.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Jul 29 '14 at 8:05

























        answered Jan 13 '14 at 11:28









        Mike Seymour

        213k19332551




        213k19332551












        • #pragma once is a preprocessor feature though, not a compiler feature.
          – datenwolf
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:29










        • @datenwolf: Indeed, if you want to regard the first few translation stages as "preprocessing".
          – Mike Seymour
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:29






        • 1




          @datenwolf: That's irrelevant to this question about basic compilation, where all that matters is that it's part of the translation process, which we might as well loosely call "compilation", but I've added a note that might keep some pedants happy.
          – Mike Seymour
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:32








        • 1




          @datenwolf By whom? The standard specifies a total of 9 steps in program translation. The term "preprocessor" is a colloquial expression (not exact) for the first 6.
          – James Kanze
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:34






        • 1




          @datenwolf What compiler runs the preprocessor as a separate process? (Not that it matters, of course. g++, and probably a lot of other compilers, run the front-end, the optimizer and the back-end as separate processes.)
          – James Kanze
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:35




















        • #pragma once is a preprocessor feature though, not a compiler feature.
          – datenwolf
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:29










        • @datenwolf: Indeed, if you want to regard the first few translation stages as "preprocessing".
          – Mike Seymour
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:29






        • 1




          @datenwolf: That's irrelevant to this question about basic compilation, where all that matters is that it's part of the translation process, which we might as well loosely call "compilation", but I've added a note that might keep some pedants happy.
          – Mike Seymour
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:32








        • 1




          @datenwolf By whom? The standard specifies a total of 9 steps in program translation. The term "preprocessor" is a colloquial expression (not exact) for the first 6.
          – James Kanze
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:34






        • 1




          @datenwolf What compiler runs the preprocessor as a separate process? (Not that it matters, of course. g++, and probably a lot of other compilers, run the front-end, the optimizer and the back-end as separate processes.)
          – James Kanze
          Jan 13 '14 at 11:35


















        #pragma once is a preprocessor feature though, not a compiler feature.
        – datenwolf
        Jan 13 '14 at 11:29




        #pragma once is a preprocessor feature though, not a compiler feature.
        – datenwolf
        Jan 13 '14 at 11:29












        @datenwolf: Indeed, if you want to regard the first few translation stages as "preprocessing".
        – Mike Seymour
        Jan 13 '14 at 11:29




        @datenwolf: Indeed, if you want to regard the first few translation stages as "preprocessing".
        – Mike Seymour
        Jan 13 '14 at 11:29




        1




        1




        @datenwolf: That's irrelevant to this question about basic compilation, where all that matters is that it's part of the translation process, which we might as well loosely call "compilation", but I've added a note that might keep some pedants happy.
        – Mike Seymour
        Jan 13 '14 at 11:32






        @datenwolf: That's irrelevant to this question about basic compilation, where all that matters is that it's part of the translation process, which we might as well loosely call "compilation", but I've added a note that might keep some pedants happy.
        – Mike Seymour
        Jan 13 '14 at 11:32






        1




        1




        @datenwolf By whom? The standard specifies a total of 9 steps in program translation. The term "preprocessor" is a colloquial expression (not exact) for the first 6.
        – James Kanze
        Jan 13 '14 at 11:34




        @datenwolf By whom? The standard specifies a total of 9 steps in program translation. The term "preprocessor" is a colloquial expression (not exact) for the first 6.
        – James Kanze
        Jan 13 '14 at 11:34




        1




        1




        @datenwolf What compiler runs the preprocessor as a separate process? (Not that it matters, of course. g++, and probably a lot of other compilers, run the front-end, the optimizer and the back-end as separate processes.)
        – James Kanze
        Jan 13 '14 at 11:35






        @datenwolf What compiler runs the preprocessor as a separate process? (Not that it matters, of course. g++, and probably a lot of other compilers, run the front-end, the optimizer and the back-end as separate processes.)
        – James Kanze
        Jan 13 '14 at 11:35












        up vote
        9
        down vote













        Because there are bizarre edge cases where re-including a file is useful.



        Contrived ugly example: Suppose you had an #include file mymin.h like this:



        // mymin.h : ugly "pseudo-template" hack
        MINTYPE min(MINTYPE a, MINTYPE b)
        {
        return (a < b) ? a : b;
        }


        You could then do something like this:



        #define MINTYPE int
        #include "mymin.h"

        #define MINTYPE double
        #include "mymin.h"


        Now, you have two overloads of min for different types, and a good candidate for http://thedailywtf.com/. Who needs templates? ;-)



        Note that lots of modern preprocessors support #pragma once, which is a much nicer way of achieving the same effect as include guards. However, it's unfortunately non-standard.






        share|improve this answer























        • in this case why don't #define both A and B before including the header?
          – phuclv
          Jan 13 '14 at 12:53










        • @LưuVĩnhPhúc _ I did warn it was contrived... It's just to illustrate that re-includeing a file could have a different effect each time.
          – Roddy
          Jan 13 '14 at 12:59












        • @LưuVĩnhPhúc - I've changed the "example". but this is still a case of "don't try this at home".
          – Roddy
          Jan 13 '14 at 13:22















        up vote
        9
        down vote













        Because there are bizarre edge cases where re-including a file is useful.



        Contrived ugly example: Suppose you had an #include file mymin.h like this:



        // mymin.h : ugly "pseudo-template" hack
        MINTYPE min(MINTYPE a, MINTYPE b)
        {
        return (a < b) ? a : b;
        }


        You could then do something like this:



        #define MINTYPE int
        #include "mymin.h"

        #define MINTYPE double
        #include "mymin.h"


        Now, you have two overloads of min for different types, and a good candidate for http://thedailywtf.com/. Who needs templates? ;-)



        Note that lots of modern preprocessors support #pragma once, which is a much nicer way of achieving the same effect as include guards. However, it's unfortunately non-standard.






        share|improve this answer























        • in this case why don't #define both A and B before including the header?
          – phuclv
          Jan 13 '14 at 12:53










        • @LưuVĩnhPhúc _ I did warn it was contrived... It's just to illustrate that re-includeing a file could have a different effect each time.
          – Roddy
          Jan 13 '14 at 12:59












        • @LưuVĩnhPhúc - I've changed the "example". but this is still a case of "don't try this at home".
          – Roddy
          Jan 13 '14 at 13:22













        up vote
        9
        down vote










        up vote
        9
        down vote









        Because there are bizarre edge cases where re-including a file is useful.



        Contrived ugly example: Suppose you had an #include file mymin.h like this:



        // mymin.h : ugly "pseudo-template" hack
        MINTYPE min(MINTYPE a, MINTYPE b)
        {
        return (a < b) ? a : b;
        }


        You could then do something like this:



        #define MINTYPE int
        #include "mymin.h"

        #define MINTYPE double
        #include "mymin.h"


        Now, you have two overloads of min for different types, and a good candidate for http://thedailywtf.com/. Who needs templates? ;-)



        Note that lots of modern preprocessors support #pragma once, which is a much nicer way of achieving the same effect as include guards. However, it's unfortunately non-standard.






        share|improve this answer














        Because there are bizarre edge cases where re-including a file is useful.



        Contrived ugly example: Suppose you had an #include file mymin.h like this:



        // mymin.h : ugly "pseudo-template" hack
        MINTYPE min(MINTYPE a, MINTYPE b)
        {
        return (a < b) ? a : b;
        }


        You could then do something like this:



        #define MINTYPE int
        #include "mymin.h"

        #define MINTYPE double
        #include "mymin.h"


        Now, you have two overloads of min for different types, and a good candidate for http://thedailywtf.com/. Who needs templates? ;-)



        Note that lots of modern preprocessors support #pragma once, which is a much nicer way of achieving the same effect as include guards. However, it's unfortunately non-standard.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Jan 13 '14 at 13:21

























        answered Jan 13 '14 at 11:31









        Roddy

        45.3k35145239




        45.3k35145239












        • in this case why don't #define both A and B before including the header?
          – phuclv
          Jan 13 '14 at 12:53










        • @LưuVĩnhPhúc _ I did warn it was contrived... It's just to illustrate that re-includeing a file could have a different effect each time.
          – Roddy
          Jan 13 '14 at 12:59












        • @LưuVĩnhPhúc - I've changed the "example". but this is still a case of "don't try this at home".
          – Roddy
          Jan 13 '14 at 13:22


















        • in this case why don't #define both A and B before including the header?
          – phuclv
          Jan 13 '14 at 12:53










        • @LưuVĩnhPhúc _ I did warn it was contrived... It's just to illustrate that re-includeing a file could have a different effect each time.
          – Roddy
          Jan 13 '14 at 12:59












        • @LưuVĩnhPhúc - I've changed the "example". but this is still a case of "don't try this at home".
          – Roddy
          Jan 13 '14 at 13:22
















        in this case why don't #define both A and B before including the header?
        – phuclv
        Jan 13 '14 at 12:53




        in this case why don't #define both A and B before including the header?
        – phuclv
        Jan 13 '14 at 12:53












        @LưuVĩnhPhúc _ I did warn it was contrived... It's just to illustrate that re-includeing a file could have a different effect each time.
        – Roddy
        Jan 13 '14 at 12:59






        @LưuVĩnhPhúc _ I did warn it was contrived... It's just to illustrate that re-includeing a file could have a different effect each time.
        – Roddy
        Jan 13 '14 at 12:59














        @LưuVĩnhPhúc - I've changed the "example". but this is still a case of "don't try this at home".
        – Roddy
        Jan 13 '14 at 13:22




        @LưuVĩnhPhúc - I've changed the "example". but this is still a case of "don't try this at home".
        – Roddy
        Jan 13 '14 at 13:22










        up vote
        4
        down vote














        Why can't my compiler (GCC) detect that it is loading the same code twice and have a sensible default behaviour?




        Because it's not the compiler doing the include processing. It's done by the preprocessor which is essentially a text transformation engine. And for text transformation engine it can make perfect sense if the same include appears multiple times when processing a piece of text.



        Let sink this in for a moment: The compiler does not process #includes. This is what makes it impossible to make sensible decisions on symbol redefinitions by the compiler.



        Other languages implement modules as a part of the language, and in those languages things are not processed as a text substitution and the compiler actually has knowledge about the import semantics.






        share|improve this answer

























          up vote
          4
          down vote














          Why can't my compiler (GCC) detect that it is loading the same code twice and have a sensible default behaviour?




          Because it's not the compiler doing the include processing. It's done by the preprocessor which is essentially a text transformation engine. And for text transformation engine it can make perfect sense if the same include appears multiple times when processing a piece of text.



          Let sink this in for a moment: The compiler does not process #includes. This is what makes it impossible to make sensible decisions on symbol redefinitions by the compiler.



          Other languages implement modules as a part of the language, and in those languages things are not processed as a text substitution and the compiler actually has knowledge about the import semantics.






          share|improve this answer























            up vote
            4
            down vote










            up vote
            4
            down vote










            Why can't my compiler (GCC) detect that it is loading the same code twice and have a sensible default behaviour?




            Because it's not the compiler doing the include processing. It's done by the preprocessor which is essentially a text transformation engine. And for text transformation engine it can make perfect sense if the same include appears multiple times when processing a piece of text.



            Let sink this in for a moment: The compiler does not process #includes. This is what makes it impossible to make sensible decisions on symbol redefinitions by the compiler.



            Other languages implement modules as a part of the language, and in those languages things are not processed as a text substitution and the compiler actually has knowledge about the import semantics.






            share|improve this answer













            Why can't my compiler (GCC) detect that it is loading the same code twice and have a sensible default behaviour?




            Because it's not the compiler doing the include processing. It's done by the preprocessor which is essentially a text transformation engine. And for text transformation engine it can make perfect sense if the same include appears multiple times when processing a piece of text.



            Let sink this in for a moment: The compiler does not process #includes. This is what makes it impossible to make sensible decisions on symbol redefinitions by the compiler.



            Other languages implement modules as a part of the language, and in those languages things are not processed as a text substitution and the compiler actually has knowledge about the import semantics.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Jan 13 '14 at 11:28









            datenwolf

            131k9128231




            131k9128231






















                up vote
                0
                down vote













                Include guards protect against symbol redefinition and including the same files multiple times.



                The compiler needs this mechanism because for obvious reasons, it does not include a mechanism to analyze and decide which code version to consider. Think of what would happen if the same function signature in two different header files only the return type is different.



                Assuming the content is exactly the same only it's included from multiple headers, The compiler would require extra computing power and memory to keep track of the code it already included.



                So it would be error prone and inneficient






                share|improve this answer



























                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote













                  Include guards protect against symbol redefinition and including the same files multiple times.



                  The compiler needs this mechanism because for obvious reasons, it does not include a mechanism to analyze and decide which code version to consider. Think of what would happen if the same function signature in two different header files only the return type is different.



                  Assuming the content is exactly the same only it's included from multiple headers, The compiler would require extra computing power and memory to keep track of the code it already included.



                  So it would be error prone and inneficient






                  share|improve this answer

























                    up vote
                    0
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    0
                    down vote









                    Include guards protect against symbol redefinition and including the same files multiple times.



                    The compiler needs this mechanism because for obvious reasons, it does not include a mechanism to analyze and decide which code version to consider. Think of what would happen if the same function signature in two different header files only the return type is different.



                    Assuming the content is exactly the same only it's included from multiple headers, The compiler would require extra computing power and memory to keep track of the code it already included.



                    So it would be error prone and inneficient






                    share|improve this answer














                    Include guards protect against symbol redefinition and including the same files multiple times.



                    The compiler needs this mechanism because for obvious reasons, it does not include a mechanism to analyze and decide which code version to consider. Think of what would happen if the same function signature in two different header files only the return type is different.



                    Assuming the content is exactly the same only it's included from multiple headers, The compiler would require extra computing power and memory to keep track of the code it already included.



                    So it would be error prone and inneficient







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited Jan 13 '14 at 12:12

























                    answered Jan 13 '14 at 11:57









                    Pandrei

                    3,90731938




                    3,90731938






















                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote














                        Why can't my compiler (GCC) detect that it is loading the same code twice and have a sensible default behaviour?




                        Because then it wouldn't be a C compiler. The language is specified such that #include creates a textual transclusion, and doing something different to the specification would break valid code.



                        The obvious follow-up question, "could we change the C Standard?" still has to find some way to avoid the same breakage of existing valid code.



                        One thing a compiler could legitimately do is to emit a warning when a non-empty (after processing #ifdef and the like) file is multiply included without some indicator that it's intentional. If you're sufficiently motivated, perhaps you could prepare a suitable patch for your favourite compiler(s)?



                        BTW, you'll find that the problem gets very hard as soon as you have to come up with a good robust definition of "same code".






                        share|improve this answer



























                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote














                          Why can't my compiler (GCC) detect that it is loading the same code twice and have a sensible default behaviour?




                          Because then it wouldn't be a C compiler. The language is specified such that #include creates a textual transclusion, and doing something different to the specification would break valid code.



                          The obvious follow-up question, "could we change the C Standard?" still has to find some way to avoid the same breakage of existing valid code.



                          One thing a compiler could legitimately do is to emit a warning when a non-empty (after processing #ifdef and the like) file is multiply included without some indicator that it's intentional. If you're sufficiently motivated, perhaps you could prepare a suitable patch for your favourite compiler(s)?



                          BTW, you'll find that the problem gets very hard as soon as you have to come up with a good robust definition of "same code".






                          share|improve this answer

























                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote










                            Why can't my compiler (GCC) detect that it is loading the same code twice and have a sensible default behaviour?




                            Because then it wouldn't be a C compiler. The language is specified such that #include creates a textual transclusion, and doing something different to the specification would break valid code.



                            The obvious follow-up question, "could we change the C Standard?" still has to find some way to avoid the same breakage of existing valid code.



                            One thing a compiler could legitimately do is to emit a warning when a non-empty (after processing #ifdef and the like) file is multiply included without some indicator that it's intentional. If you're sufficiently motivated, perhaps you could prepare a suitable patch for your favourite compiler(s)?



                            BTW, you'll find that the problem gets very hard as soon as you have to come up with a good robust definition of "same code".






                            share|improve this answer















                            Why can't my compiler (GCC) detect that it is loading the same code twice and have a sensible default behaviour?




                            Because then it wouldn't be a C compiler. The language is specified such that #include creates a textual transclusion, and doing something different to the specification would break valid code.



                            The obvious follow-up question, "could we change the C Standard?" still has to find some way to avoid the same breakage of existing valid code.



                            One thing a compiler could legitimately do is to emit a warning when a non-empty (after processing #ifdef and the like) file is multiply included without some indicator that it's intentional. If you're sufficiently motivated, perhaps you could prepare a suitable patch for your favourite compiler(s)?



                            BTW, you'll find that the problem gets very hard as soon as you have to come up with a good robust definition of "same code".







                            share|improve this answer














                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer








                            edited yesterday

























                            answered yesterday









                            Toby Speight

                            16k133965




                            16k133965






















                                up vote
                                -1
                                down vote













                                Even if compiler decides to do that, it needs to keep track of huge number of files, and many times (as commented by itwasntpete), compiler has no way to distinguish between actual code and header file.






                                share|improve this answer

















                                • 4




                                  Makes no sense. It's got to keep track of the same number of #defines for the header guards...
                                  – Roddy
                                  Jan 13 '14 at 11:27















                                up vote
                                -1
                                down vote













                                Even if compiler decides to do that, it needs to keep track of huge number of files, and many times (as commented by itwasntpete), compiler has no way to distinguish between actual code and header file.






                                share|improve this answer

















                                • 4




                                  Makes no sense. It's got to keep track of the same number of #defines for the header guards...
                                  – Roddy
                                  Jan 13 '14 at 11:27













                                up vote
                                -1
                                down vote










                                up vote
                                -1
                                down vote









                                Even if compiler decides to do that, it needs to keep track of huge number of files, and many times (as commented by itwasntpete), compiler has no way to distinguish between actual code and header file.






                                share|improve this answer












                                Even if compiler decides to do that, it needs to keep track of huge number of files, and many times (as commented by itwasntpete), compiler has no way to distinguish between actual code and header file.







                                share|improve this answer












                                share|improve this answer



                                share|improve this answer










                                answered Jan 13 '14 at 11:26









                                Pranit Kothari

                                5,562846109




                                5,562846109








                                • 4




                                  Makes no sense. It's got to keep track of the same number of #defines for the header guards...
                                  – Roddy
                                  Jan 13 '14 at 11:27














                                • 4




                                  Makes no sense. It's got to keep track of the same number of #defines for the header guards...
                                  – Roddy
                                  Jan 13 '14 at 11:27








                                4




                                4




                                Makes no sense. It's got to keep track of the same number of #defines for the header guards...
                                – Roddy
                                Jan 13 '14 at 11:27




                                Makes no sense. It's got to keep track of the same number of #defines for the header guards...
                                – Roddy
                                Jan 13 '14 at 11:27


















                                 

                                draft saved


                                draft discarded



















































                                 


                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f21090041%2fwhy-include-guards%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Trompette piccolo

                                Slow SSRS Report in dynamic grouping and multiple parameters

                                Simon Yates (cyclisme)