C中的宏与函数之间的区别与指令存储器和速度有关

Question

To my understanding the difference between a macro and a function is, that a macro-call will be replaced by the instruction in the definition, and a function does the whole push, branch and pop -thing. Is this right, or have I understand something wrong?

Additionally, if this is right, it would mean, that macros would take more space, but would be faster (because of the lack of the push, branch and pop instructions), wouldn't it?

Answer 1

What you are wrote about the performance implications is correct if the C compiler is not optimizing. But optimizing compilers can inline functions just as if they were macros, so an inlined function call runs at the same speed as a macro, and there is no pushing/popping overhead. To trigger inlining, enable optimization in your compiler settings (eg gcc -O2 ), and put your functions to the .h file as static inline .

Please note that sometimes inlining/macros is faster, sometimes a real function call is faster, depending on the code and the compiler. If the function body is very short (and most of it will be optimized away), usually inlining is faster than a function call.

Another important difference that macros can take arguments of different types, and the macro definition can make sense for multiple types (but the compiler won't do type checking for you, so you may get undesired behavior or a cryptic error message if you use a macro with the wrong argument type). This polymorphism is hard to mimic with functions in C (but easy in C++ with function overloading and function templates).

Answer 2

This might have been right in the 1980s, but modern compilers are much better.

Functions don't always push and pop the stack, especially if they're leaf functions or have tail calls. Also, functions are often inlined, and can be inlined even if they are defined in other translation units (this is called link-time optimization).

But you're right that in general, when optimizations are turned off, a macro be inlined and a function won't be inlined. Either version may take more space, it depends on the particulars of the macro/function.

A function uses space in two ways: the body uses space, and the function call uses space. If the function body is very small, it may actually save space to inline it.

Answer 3

Yes your understanding is right. But you should also note that, no type checking in macro and it can lead to side effect . You should also be very careful in parenthesizing macros.

Answer 4

Your understanding is half correct. The point is that macros are resolved before compilation. You should think of them as sophisticated text replacement tools (that's oversimplifying it, but is mostly what it comes down to).

So the difference is when in the build process your code is used.

This is orthogonal to the question of what the compiler really does with it when it creates the final binary code. It is more or less free to do whatever it thinks is correct to produce the intended behaviour. In C++, you can only hint at your preference with the inline keyword. The compiler is free to ignore that hint.

Again, this is orthogonal to the whole preprocessor business. Nothing stops you from writing macros which result in C++ code using the inline keyword, after all. Likewise, nobody stops you from writing macros which result in a lot of recursive C++ functions which the compiler will probably not be able to inline even if wanted to do.

The conclusion is that your question is wrong. It's a general question of having binaries with a lot of inlined functions vs. binaries with a lot of real function calls. Macros are just one technique you can use to influence the tradeoff in one way or the other, and you will ask yourself the same general question without macros.

The assumption that inlining a function will always trade space for speed is wrong. Inlining the wrong (ie too big) functions will even have a negative impact on speed. As is always the case with such opimisations, do not guess but measure .

You should read the FAQ on this: "Do inline functions improve performance?"