This document describes what I consider good C. Some rules are as trivial as style, while others are more intricate. Some rules I adhere to religiously, and others I use as a guideline. I prioritize correctness, readability, simplicity and maintainability over speed, because:
- premature optimization is the root of all evil
- compilers are generally better at optimizing than humans, and they're only going to get better
Write correct, readable, simple and maintainable software, and tune it when you're done, with benchmarks to identify the choke points. Also, modern compilers will change computational complexities. Simplicity can often lead you to the best solution anyway: it's easier to write a linked list than it is to get an array to grow, but it's harder to index a list than it is to index an array.
Many of these rules are just good programming practices, and apply outside of C programming. Writing this guide made me deeply consider, and reconsider, best C programming practices. I've changed my opinion multiple times on many of the rules in this document.
So, I'm certain I'm wrong on even more points. This is a constant work-in-progress; issues and pull-requests are very welcome. This guide is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, so I'm not liable for anything you do with this, etc.
Always write to a standard, as in -std=c11. Don't write to a dialect, like gnu11. You'll thank yourself later.
The idea of tabs was that we'd use tabs for indentation levels, and spaces for alignment. This lets people choose an indentation width to their liking, without breaking alignment of columns.
int main( void ) {
|tab |if ( pigs_can_fly() ) {
|tab ||tab |developers_can_use_tabs( "and align columns "
|tab ||tab | "with spaces!" );
|tab |}
}But, alas, we (and our editors) rarely get it right. I prefer to cut the complexity and only use spaces, because that's harder to get wrong.
Stick to single-line comments, and cut the complexity. Compared to single-line comments, multi-line comments:
- are rarely used with a blank margin, so they're just as character-heavy
- have a style, which has to be specified and adhered to
- often have
*/on its own line, so they're more line-expensive - have weird rules about embedded
/*and*/
But certainly use comments to explain bad design or bad naming forced upon you. If your project heavily depends on the bad interface, you should write a wrapper around it to improve it (if you do, please release it!).
This is just a preference, but I've really taken to writing comments after the code. I find it to be much easier to read, and much more informative. It also encourages the comments to not repeat what the code says. I now declare my structs like this:
typedef struct Alphabet {
// An Alphabet defines an ordering of characters, such that each
// character in the Alphabet has exactly one corresponding index.
int size;
// The number of characters in this Alphabet.
int ( *index_for )( char );
// Returns the index for the given character, or -1 if that char
// isn't in this Alphabet. The index must be less than the
// Alphabet's size.
char ( *char_for )( int );
// Returns the character associated with the given index, or
// `Trie_ERR` if the index is invalid ( < 0 or >= size ).
} Alphabet;But, if the comment will refer to a multi-line block of code, I'll still put the comment at the top.
Write color, flavor, center, meter, neighbor, defense, routing, sizable, burned, and so on (see more). I'm Australian, but I appreciate that most programmers will be learning and using American English. Also, American English spelling is consistently more phonetic and consistent than British English. British English tends to evolve towards American English for this reason, I think.
Namespaces are one of the great advances of software development. Unfortunately, C missed out (scopes aren't namespaces). But, because namespaces are so fantastic, we should try to simulate them with comments.
#include <stdlib.h> // size_t, calloc, freeIf the name occurs in your source code, it should be declared in that file, or mentioned in a comment beside the header file it's declared in. It's terrible to require readers to refer to documentation or use grep to get this information. I've never seen any projects that do this, but I think it would be great if more did.
You can use man <func> to find out where a standard library function is defined, and man stdlib.h to get documentation on that header (to see what it defines).
Don't depend on what your headers include. If your code uses a symbol, include the header file where that symbol is defined.
This saves your readers and fellow developers from having to follow a trail of includes just to find the definition of a symbol you're using. Your code should just tell them where it comes from.
It also helps to future-proof your code if a header stops including another header.
Unified headers are bad, because they relieve the library developer of the responsibility to provide loosely-coupled modules clearly separated by their purpose and abstraction. Even if the developer (thinks she) does this anyway, a unified header increases compilation time, and couples the user's program to the entire library, regardless of if they need it. There are numerous other disadvantages, touched on in the points above.
There was a good exposé on unified headers on the Programmers' Stack Exchange. An answer mentions that it's reasonable for something like GTK+ to only provide a single header file. I agree, but I think that's due to the bad design of GTK+, and it's not intrinsic to a graphical toolkit.
It's harder for users to write multiple #includes just like it's harder for users to write types. Bringing difficulty into it is missing the forest for the trees.
Global variables are just hidden arguments to all the functions that use them. They make it really hard to understand what a function does, and how it is controlled.
Mutable global variables are especially evil and should be avoided at all costs. Conceptually, a global variable assignment is a bunch of longjmps to set hidden, static variables. Yuck.
The only circumstance where a global variable is excusable is if it's const and only referred to in main. Otherwise, you should design your functions to be controllable by their arguments. Even if you have a variable that will have to be passed around to lots of a functions - if it affects their computation, it should be a argument or a member of a argument. This always leads to better software.
Static variables in functions are just global variables scoped to that function; the arguments above apply equally to them. Just like global variables, static variables are often used as an easy way out of providing modular, pure functions. They're often defended in the name of performance (benchmarks first!).
You don't need static variables, just like you don't need global variables. If you need persistent state, have the function accept that state as a argument. If you need to return something persistent, allocate memory for it.
const improves compile-time correctness. It isn't only for documenting read-only pointers. It should be used for every read-only variable and every read-only pointee.
const helps the reader immensely in understanding a piece of functionality. If they can look at an initialization and be sure that that value won't change throughout the scope, they can reason about the rest of the scope much easier. Without const, everything is up in the air; the reader is forced to comprehend the entire scope to understand what is and isn't being modified. If you consistently use const, your reader will begin to trust you, and will be able to assume that a variable that isn't qualified with const is a signal that it will be changed at some point.
Using const everywhere you can also helps you, as a developer, reason about what's happening in the control flow of your program, and where mutability is spreading. Furthermore, it gets the compiler on your side. It's amazing, when using const, how much more helpful the compiler is, especially regarding pointers and pointees.
The compiler will warn if a pointee loses constness in a function call (because that would let the pointee be modified), but it won't complain if a pointee gains constness. Thus, if you don't specify your pointer arguments as const when they're read-only anyway, you discourage your users from using const in their code:
// Bad: sum should define its array as const.
int sum( int n, int * xs );
// Because otherwise, this will be a compilation warning:
int const xs[] = { 1, 2, 3 };
sum( 3, xs );
// => warning: passing argument 2 of ‘sum’ discards ‘const’
// qualifier from pointer target typeThus, using const isn't really a choice, at least for function signatures. Lots of people consider it beneficial, so everyone should consider it required, whether they like it or not. If you don't use const, you force your users to either cast all calls to your functions (yuck), ignore const warnings (asking for trouble), or remove those const qualifiers (lose compile-time correctness).
If you're forced to work with a library that ignores const, you can write a macro that casts for you:
// `sum` will not modify the given array; casts for `const` pointers.
#define sum( n, xs ) sum( n, ( int * ) xs )Only provide const qualifiers for pointees in function prototypes - const for the argument names themselves is just an implementation detail.
// Unnecessary
bool Trie_has( Trie const, char const * const );
// Good
bool Trie_has( Trie, char const * );Also, only make constant the pointees of struct members, not the struct members themselves. For example, if any of your struct members should be assignable to a string literal, give that member the type char const *. Qualifying other members with const turns all variables of that struct into a const, and that hurts more than helps.
const for return-type pointees also tends to harm the flexibility of your interface. It's generally best to leave const to the declarations. Think carefully when making return types const.
Finally, never use typecasts or pointers to get around const qualifiers. If the variable isn't constant, don't make it one, or if the variable is constant, apply qualifiers as needed.
const char * word; // Bad: not as const-y as it can be
const char * const word; // Bad: makes types very weird to read
char const* const word; // Bad: weird * placement
// Good: right-to-left, word is a constant pointer to a constant char
char const * const word;Because of this rule, you should always pad the * type qualifier with spaces.
From 21st Century C, by Ben Klemens:
printf( "%f\n", ( float )333334126.98 ); // 333334112.000000
printf( "%f\n", ( float )333334125.31 ); // 333334112.000000Space isn't an issue anymore, but floating-point errors still are. It's much harder for numeric drift to cause problems for doubles than it is for floats. float is another thing we just don't need anymore, so don't use it and your C programming will be simpler.
Ben Klemens says there is less of imperative to use longs over ints, but it's still something you should think about:
Should we use long
ints everywhere integers are used? The case isn't quite as open and shut. Adoublerepresentation ofnis more precise than afloatrepresentation ofn, even though we’re in the ballpark of three; bothintandlongrepresentations of numbers up to a few billion are precisely identical. The only issue is overflow, [whenintwill be entirely wrong.]
As well as this argument, I'm partial to using int (for now) over long just because it reads better. Also, int plays a large role in idiomatic C (e.g. return codes), so it would be quite jarring to ditch completely in favor of long.
This reminds the reader of the type they're working with. It also suggests where to extract a function to minimize variable scope. Declaring variables when they're needed almost always leads to initialization (int x = 1;), rather than declaration (int x;). Initializing a variable usually means you can const it, too.
To me, all declarations are shifty.
Again: Ben Klemens, from 21st Century C:
If you declare a variable inside a function, then C won't zero it out automatically (which is perhaps odd for things called automatic variables). I'm guessing that the rationale here is a speed savings: when setting up the frame for a function, zeroing out bits is extra time spent, which could potentially add up if you call the function a million times and it's 1985. But here in the present, leaving a variable undefined is asking for trouble.
"Zeroing" means assigning numbers to 0 and pointers to NULL. Note that struct and array initializations zero all non-mentioned fields:
int zeroed[ 3 ] = { 0 }; // { 0, 0, 0 }
Book book = {}; // { .name = NULL, .pages = 0 }
// sometimes it's better to explicitly mention your fields, though
// (like if your reader is unlikely to be familiar with the struct)Unfortunately, variable-length arrays can't be initialized, so I'll usually only zero a variable-length array if it's defined in a large scope, or will be passed to other scopes.
This makes the types easier to change in future, because atomic lines are easier to edit. If you'll need to change all their types together, you should use your editor's block editing mode.
I think it's alright to bunch semantically-connected struct members together, though, because struct definitions are much easier to comprehend than active code.
// Fine
typedef struct Color {
char r, g, b;
} Color;If the scope fits on a screen, and the variable is used in a lot of places, and there would be an obvious letter or two to represent it, try it out and see if it helps readability. It probably will!
Consistency helps your readers understand what's happening. Using different names for the same values in functions is suspicious, and forces your readers to reason about unimportant things.
bool print_steps = false; // Good - intent is clear
int print_steps = 0; // Bad - is this counting steps?Explicit comparisons tell the reader what they're working with, because it's not always obvious in C. Are we working with counts or booleans or pointers?
if ( !num_kittens ); // Bad, though the name helps
if ( balance != 0 ); // Good
if ( on_fire ); // Bad; not obvious it's a boolean
if ( is_hostile == true ); // Good
if ( !address ); // Bad; not obvious it's a pointer
if ( address == NULL ); // GoodThis happens way too much in C programming. I think it was because this was done a lot in The C Programming Language. It's a really bad habit, and makes it so much harder to follow what your program is doing. Never change state in an expression.
Trie_add( *child, ++word ); // Bad
Trie_add( *child, word + 1 ); // Good
// Good, if you need to modify `word`
word += 1;
Trie_add( *child, word );
// Bad
if ( ( x = calc() ) == 0 );
// Good
x = calc();
if ( x == 0 );
// Fine (technically an assignment within an expression)
a = b = c;But don't use multiple assignment unless the variable's values are semantically linked. If there are two variable assignments near each other that coincidentally have the same value, don't throw them into a multiple assignment just to save a line.
Assign function calls to a variable to describe what it is, even if the variable is as simple as an int rv (return value). This avoids surprising your readers with hidden state changes. Even if you think it's obvious, and it will save you a line - it's not worth the potential for a slip-up. Stick to this rule, and don't think about it.
The only exception is if the function name is short and reads naturally where it will be placed. For example, if the function name is a predicate, like is_adult or in_tree, then it will read naturally in an if expression. It's also probably fine to join these kind of functions in a boolean expression if you need to, but use your judgement. Complex boolean expressions should often be extracted to a function.
// Good
int rv = listen( fd, backlog );
if ( rv == -1 ) {
perror( "listen" );
return 1;
}
// Good
if ( is_tasty( banana ) ) {
eat( banana );
}CERT attempts to explain the integer conversion rules, saying:
Misunderstanding integer conversion rules can lead to errors, which in turn can lead to exploitable vulnerabilities. Severity: medium, Likelihood: probable.
Expert C Programming (a great book that explores the ANSI standard) also explains this in its first chapter. The takeaway is that you shouldn't declare unsigned variables even if they shouldn't be negative. If you want a larger maximum value, use a long or long long. If your function will fail with a negative number, assert that it's positive. Remember, lots of dynamic languages make do with a single integer type that can be either sign.
Unsigned values offer no type safety; even with -Wall and -Wextra, GCC doesn't bat an eyelid at unsigned int x = -1;.
Expert C Programming also provides an example for why you should cast all macros that will evaluate to an unsigned value.
#define NELEM( xs ) ( ( sizeof xs ) / ( sizeof xs[0] ) )
int const xs[] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
int main( void )
{
int const d = -1;
if ( d < NELEM( xs ) - 1 ) {
return xs[ d + 1 ];
}
return 0;
}The if branch won't be executed, because NELEM will evaluate to an unsigned int (via sizeof). So, d will be promoted to an unsigned int. -1 in two's complement represents the largest possible unsigned value (bit-wise), so the expression will be false, and the program will return 0. The solution in this case would be to cast the result of NELEM:
#define NELEM( xs ) ( long )( sizeof( xs ) / sizeof( xs[ 0 ] ) )Actually, don't use either form if you can help it. Changing state should always be avoided (within reason). But, when you have to, += and -= are obvious, simpler and less cryptic than ++ and --, and useful in other contexts. Python does without ++ and -- operators, and Douglas Crockford excluded them from the good parts of JavaScript, because we don't need them. Sticking to this rule also encourages you to avoid changing state within an expression (below).
Use parentheses for expressions where the operator precedence isn't obvious
int x = a * b + c / d; // Bad
int x = ( a * b ) + ( c / d ); // Good
&( ( struct sockaddr_in* ) sa )->sin_addr; // Bad
&( ( ( struct sockaddr_in* ) sa )->sin_addr ); // GoodYou can and should make exceptions for commonly-seen combinations of operations. For example, skipping the operators when combining the equality and boolean operators is fine, because readers are probably used to that, and are confident of the result.
// Fine
return hungry == true
|| ( legs != NULL && fridge.empty == false );The switch fall-through mechanism is error-prone, and you almost never want the cases to fall through anyway, so the vast majority of switches are longer than the if equivalent. Also, case values have to be an integral constant expression, so they can't match against another variable. Furthermore, any statement inside a switch can be labelled and jumped to, which fosters highly-obscure bugs if, for example, you mistype defau1t.
if has none of these issues, is simpler, and easier to change.
If you limit yourself to a maximum of one blank line within functions, this rule provides clear visual separation of global elements. This is a habit I learned from Python's PEP8 style guide.
If a few variables are only used in a contiguous sequence of lines, and only a single value is used after that sequence, then those lines are a great candidate for extracting to a function.
// Good: addr was only used in a part of handle_request
int accept_request( int const listenfd )
{
struct sockaddr addr;
return accept( listenfd, &addr, &( socklen_t ){ sizeof addr } );
}
int handle_request( int const listenfd )
{
int const reqfd = accept_request( listenfd );
// ... stuff not involving addr, but involving reqfd
}If the body of accept_request were left in handle_request, then the addr variable will be in the scope for the remainder of the handle_request function even though it's only used for getting the reqfd. This kind of thing adds to the cognitive load of understanding a function, and should be fixed wherever possible.
Another tactic to limit the exposure of variables is to break apart complex expressions into blocks, like so:
// Rather than:
bool Trie_has( Trie const trie, char const * const string )
{
Trie const * const child = Trie_child( trie, string[ 0 ] );
return string[ 0 ] == '\0'
|| ( child != NULL
&& Trie_has( *child, string + 1 ) );
}
// child is only used for the second part of the conditional, so we
// can limit its exposure like so:
bool Trie_has( Trie const trie, char const * const string )
{
if ( string[ 0 ] == '\0' ) {
return true;
} else {
Trie const * const child = Trie_child( trie, string[ 0 ] );
return child != NULL
&& Trie_has( *child, string + 1 );
}
}It can often help the readability of your code if you replace variables that are only assigned to constant expressions, with those expressions.
Consider the Trie_has example above - the word[ 0 ] expression is repeated twice. It would be harder to read and follow if we inserted an extra line to define a char variable. It's just another thing that the readers would have to keep in mind. Many programmers of other languages wouldn't think twice about repeating an array access.
This is beneficial for the same reason as minimizing the scope of variables.
// Bad, if `sa` is never used again.
struct sigaction sa = {
.sa_handler = sigchld_handler,
.sa_flags = SA_RESTART
};
sigaction( SIGCHLD, &sa, NULL );
// Good
sigaction( SIGCHLD, &( struct sigaction ){
.sa_handler = sigchld_handler,
.sa_flags = SA_RESTART
}, NULL );
// Bad
int v = 1;
setsockopt( fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, &v, sizeof v );
// Good
setsockopt( fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, &( int ){ 1 }, sizeof( int ) );C can only get you so far. The preprocessor is how you meta-program C. Too many developers don't know about the advanced features of the preprocessor, like symbol stringification (#) and concatenation (##). I sometimes define macros to make the users' life easier. They don't have to use the macro if they don't want to, but users who do will probably appreciate it.
// Good - what harm does it do?
#define Trie_EACH( trie, index ) \
for ( int index = 0; index < trie.alphabet.size; index += 1 )
Trie_EACH( trie, i ) {
Trie * const child = trie.children[ i ];
...
}When you provide something like this, document what it's doing under the surface. In your documentation, encourage your users to go without the macro if they prefer. Your interfaces should be usable without macros.
By "act differently", I mean if things will break when users wouldn't expect them to. If a macro just looks different (e.g. the named arguments technique), then I don't consider that justification for an upper-case name. A macro should have an upper-case name if it:
- repeats its arguments in its body, because this will break for non-pure expressions. Many compilers provide statement expressions to prevent this, but it's non-standard. If you do use statement expressions, you don't need to upper-case your macro name, because it's not relevant to your users.
- modifies the calling context, e.g., with a
returnorgoto. - takes an array literal as a named argument. (why)
- implements an extra-syntactic construct, e.g., wrapping a
forloop. (named arguments are extra-syntactic? shh!)
Also, if I do capitalize a macro, I don't capitalize the macro's prefix: I'd call a macro Apple_SCARY rather than APPLE_SCARY.
Aligning the \ is high-maintenance and painful, so any alignment errors probably won't get fixed. By the broken-window theory, this will lead to worse things. So, just don't bother with it.
Instead, put the \ separated by one space from the last character on the line, and be done with it.
For the same reasons why we should always minimize the scope of our variables, if we can limit the scope of our macros, we should.
// Good
bool Alphabet_is_valid( Alphabet const ab ) {
#define REQUIRE( c ) if ( !( c ) ) return false;
REQUIRE( ab.size > 0 );
...
#undef REQUIRE
}Always initialize your string literals as arrays, unless you have a very good reason. Then, with an array variable, you can use it with sizeof to get the byte size, rather than something error-prone like strlen( s ) + 1 or #defineing the number.
// Good
char const message[] = "always use arrays for strings!";
write( output, message, sizeof( message ) );Due to pass-by-value semantics, structs will be "copied" when passed into functions that don't modify them. If you think this is a problem, consider:
- compilers are smart and can optimize this - if a function only uses one field of a struct, then the compiler can only copy that field
- dereferencing pointers is slow - it's better to give the function frame the actual data straight-up
- most structs are only a few bytes, so copying is negligible
- are you optimizing without benchmarks?
Defining a modification is tricky when you introduce structs with pointer members (usually pointer-to-arrays - most other pointers usually aren't needed). I consider a modification to be something that affects the value's public state. This depends on common-decency of users of the interface to respect visibility comments.
So, if a struct will be "modified" by a function, have that function accept a pointer-to-const of that struct even if it doesn't need to. This saves the readers from having to trawl through and memorize every relevant struct definition, to be aware of which structs have pointer members.
typedef struct {
int population;
} State;
typedef struct {
bool fired;
} Missile;
typedef struct {
State * states;
int num_states;
// private
Missile * missiles;
int num_missiles;
} Country;
// Good: takes a `Country *` even though it doesn't need to, because
// this will change the public state of `country`.
void Country_grow( Country const * const country, double const percent ) {
for ( int i = 0; i < country->num_states; i += 1 ) {
country->states[ i ].population *= percent;
}
}In the above example, although missiles is a "private" member, if there are any public Country_ functions whose result (or side-effects) is affected by the values of the pointees of missiles, then changes to those pointees should be considered as affecting the public state of a Country object. Assuming there aren't any such functions, then no one needs to be told about changes to missiles.
// If there are no public methods affected by `missiles`, then this is
// fine, because it doesn't change any public state of `country`.
void Country_fire_ze_missiles( Country const country ) {
for ( int i = 0; i < country.num_missiles; i += 1 ) {
country.missiles[ i ].fired = true;
}
}The other case to use pointer arguments is if the function needs nullity (i.e. the poor man's Maybe). If so, use const to signal that the pointer is not for modification, and add a maybe prefix to such variables to signal that the function should account for NULL.
// Good: `NULL` represents an empty list, and list is a pointer-to-const
int List_length( List const * maybe_list ) {
int length = 0;
for ( ; maybe_list != NULL; list = list->next ) {
length += 1;
}
return length;
}If you're reading a codebase that sticks to this rule, and its functions and types are maximally decomposed, you can often tell what a function does just by reading its prototype. Furthermore, when your readers see a dereference in a call to a function, they can be totally certain that it won't be changed by that function (when you can't make the pointee constant).
If a function returns a pointer so it can return NULL as a sentinel value, it can help to put a maybe in the function's name to signal to callers that they need to account for a NULL return value. This mimics the Maybe typeclass in Haskell (which is appearing in other languages now too).
Arrays decay into pointers in most expressions, including when passed as arguments to functions. Functions can never receive an array as a argument; only a pointer to the array. sizeof won't work like an array argument declaration would suggest; it would return the size of the pointer, not the array pointed to.
Static array indices in function arguments are nice, but only protect against very trivial situations, like when given literal NULL. Also, GCC doesn't warn about their violation yet, only Clang. I don't consider the confusing, non-obvious syntax to be worth the small compilation check.
Yeah, [] hints that the argument will be treated as an array, but so does a plural name like pets or children, so do that instead.
An invariant is a condition that can be relied upon to be true during execution of a program.
For any function that takes a struct (or a pointer), all invariants of that struct should be true before and after the execution of the function. Invariants make it the caller's responsibility to provide valid data, and the function's responsibility to return valid data. Invariants save those functions from having to repeat assertions of those conditions, or worse, not even checking and working with invalid data.
Provide an "invariants" comment section at the end of your struct definition, and list all the invariants you can think of. Also, implement is_valid and assert_valid functions for users to check those assertions on values of the structs they create on their own. These functions are crucial to being able to trust that the invariants hold for value of that struct. Without them, how will callers know?
My university faculty is pretty big on software correctness. It certainly rubbed off on me.
Good software fails fast. Also, assertion errors are much more informative than segmentation faults. If a function is given a pointer it will dereference, assert that it's not null. If it's given an array index, assert that it's within bounds. Assert for any consistency that you need between arguments.
Don't assert struct invariants, because they aren't the function's responsibility.
Don't repeat assertions. If foo first calls bar, and bar first calls baz, and all three functions need the widget argument to be non-null, then just assert that widget isn't null in baz, and treat that assertion as transitive to bar, and thus to foo. My rule is, as titled, "only assert where it will fail otherwise". This means if another assert already has your back, don't sweat it.
Don't mistake assertions for error-reporting. Assert things that you won't bother to check otherwise (like null pointers). Never let user input invalidate your assertions: filter it first, or report the error.
Repeating your assert calls improves the assertion error reporting, and is more readable.
Since C99, arrays can now be allocated to have a length determined at runtime. Unfortunately, variable-length arrays can't be initialized.
const int num_threads = atoi( argv[ 1 ] );
// Bad
pthread_t * const threads = calloc( num_threads * sizeof pthread_t );
...
free( threads );
// Good (though memory isn't zeroed, so be careful)
pthread_t threads[ num_threads ];
// The memory is released when the scope ends.As mentioned in the rule on zeroing declared variables, variable-length arrays can't be initialized, so I'll usually only zero a variable-length array if it's defined in a large scope, or will be passed to other scopes.
void * is useful for polymorphism, but polymorphism is almost never as important as type safety. Void pointers are indispensable in many situations, but you should consider other, safer alternatives first - like using unions, or the preprocessor.
Just like working with uninitialized variables is dangerous, working with void pointers is dangerous: you want the compiler on your side. So ditch the void * as soon as you can.
If it's valid to assign a value of one type to a variable of another type, then you don't have to cast it. There are only three reasons to use typecasts:
- performing true division (not integer division) of
intexpressions - making an array index an
int, but you can do this with assignment anyway - using compound literals for structs and arrays
// Good
typedef struct Person {
char * name;
int age;
} Person;CamelCase names should be exclusively used for structs so that they're recognizable without the struct prefix. They also let you name struct variables as the same thing as their type without names clashing (e.g. a banana of type Banana). You should always define the struct name, even if you don't need to, because it helps readability when the struct definition becomes large.
I don't typedef structs used for named arguments (see below), however, because the CamelCase naming would be weird. Anyway, if you're using a macro for named arguments, then the typedef is unnecessary and the struct definition is hidden.
// Bad
typedef double centermeters;
typedef double inches;
typedef struct Apple * Apple;
typedef void * gpointer;This mistake is committed by way too many codebases. It masks what's really going on, and you have to read documentation or find the typedef to learn how to work with it. Never do this in your own interfaces, and try to ignore the typedefs in other interfaces.
Also, pointer typedefs exclude the users from adding const qualifiers to the pointee. This is a huge loss for the readability of your codebase.
Even if you intend to be consistent about it, so that all camel-case typedefs are actually pointer to structs, you'll be violating the rule above on using pointers only for arrays and arguments that will be modified (and losing the benefits of that).
Every pointer in a struct is an opportunity for a segmentation fault.
If the would-be pointer shouldn't be NULL, isn't an array of an unknown size, and isn't of the type of the struct itself, then don't make it a pointer. Just include a member of the type itself in the struct. Don't worry about the size of the containing struct until you've done benchmarks.
This encourages immutability, cultivates pure functions, and makes things simpler and easier to understand.
// Bad: unnecessary mutation (probably)
void Drink_mix( Drink * const drink, Ingredient const ingr ) {
Color_blend( &( drink->color ), ingr.color );
drink->alcohol += ingr.alcohol;
}
// Good: immutability rocks, pure functions everywhere
Drink Drink_mix( Drink const drink, Ingredient const ingr ) {
return ( Drink ) {
.color = Color_blend( drink.color, ingr.color ),
.alcohol = drink.alcohol + ingr.alcohol
};
}// Bad - will break if struct members are reordered, and it's not
// always clear what the values represent.
Fruit apple = { "red", "medium" };
// Good; future-proof and descriptive
Fruit watermelon = { .color = "green", .size = "large" };struct run_server_options {
char * port;
int backlog;
};
#define run_server( ... ) \
_run_server( ( struct run_server_options ){ \
.port = "45680", \
.backlog = 5, \
__VA_ARGS__ \
} )
// default values were specified above
int run_server( struct run_server_options opts )
{
...
}
int main( void )
{
return run_server( .port = "3490", .backlog = 10 );
}I learnt this from 21st Century C. So many C interfaces could be improved immensely if they took advantage of this technique. The importance and value of (syntactic) named arguments is often understated in software development. If you're not convinced, read Bret Victor's Learnable Programming.
Back to C: you can define a macro to make it easier to define functions with named arguments.
Don't use named arguments everywhere. If a function's only argument happens to be a struct, that doesn't necessarily mean it should become the named arguments for that function. A good rule of thumb is that if the struct is used outside of that function, you shouldn't hide it with a macro like above.
// Good; the typecast here is informative and expected.
Book_new( ( Author ){ .name = "Dennis Ritchie" } );Providing _new() functions to users gives you more flexibility later on. When a "required" member is added to a struct, all previous _new() calls will become errors, whereas struct literals without that required member will still compile:
// Suppose we add a required `age` field to the `Character` struct,
// and update the `_new()` function accordingly.
Character Character__new( char * name, int age, Character options );
#define Character_new( name, age, ... ) \
Character__new( name, age, ( Character ){ __VA_ARGS__ } )
// Then old `_new()` calls are now compilation errors:
Character a = Character_new( "Arthur", .dexterity = 3 );
// But old struct literal definitions still compile:
Character b = { .name = "Brock", .strength = 5 };Still, simplicity can often be more important than maintainability. I'll still use struct literals for trivial structs, or well-defined structs which I'm sure will require no other required arguments. Also, functions can't be called when defining global variables: you have to use struct literals then.
_new() function calls become really hard to read when you have more than a few required arguments. I haven't worked out a way to have required, named arguments with compile-time correctness other than to have comments beside the calls. Lots of required arguments is often be a code-smell, anyway.
Needing encapsulation in C is often a sign that you're overcomplicating things. Anyway, if you do, only use getters and setters to show that extra computation is happening behind the scenes when they're called, and specify fields as private in the struct definition with a comment.
If there's nothing special happening behind the scenes, let your users get and set the struct members directly. Struct members should default to public unless you have a good reason to make them private. Yes, this will mean the public interface will have to change often. I consider the simplicity and brevity of direct member access to be worth it.
Don't prefix private struct members with _: you don't need to, it looks ugly, and it ties the access level with the name, which will make it a pain to change later. Also, if you do without _ prefixes, users can just access the members of the struct directly, as below:
// Good
City c = City_new( "Vancouver" );
c = City_set_state( c, "BC" );
printf( "%s is in %s, did you know?\n", c.name, c.country );But you should always provide an interface that allows for declarative programming:
// Better
City const c = City_new( "Boston", .state = "MA" );
printf( "I think I'm going to %s\n"
"Where no one changes my state\n", c.name );C doesn't have classes, methods, inheritance, object encapsulation, or polymorphism. Not to be rude, but: deal with it. C might be able to achieve crappy, complicated imitations of those things, but it's just not worth it.
As it turns out, C already has an entirely-capable language model. In C, we define data structures, and we define functionality that uses combinations of those data structures. Data and functionality aren't intertwined in complicated contraptions, and this is a good thing.
Haskell, at the forefront of language design, made the same decision to separate data and functionality. Learning Haskell is one of the best things a programmer can do to improve their technique, but I think it's especially beneficial for C programmers, because of the underlying similarities between C and Haskell. Yes, C doesn't have anonymous functions, and no, you won't be writing monads in C anytime soon. But by learning Haskell, you'll learn how to write good software without classes, without mutability, and with modularity, and these qualities are very beneficial for C programming.
Embrace and appreciate what C offers, rather than attempting to graft other paradigms onto it.
Use calloc because undefined memory is dangerous. Computers are so much faster, and compilers are so much better, and malloc is just something we don't need anymore. Always use calloc and stop caring about the difference - at least, until you've finished development, and have done benchmarks.
If you're providing new and free functions only for a struct member, allocate memory for the whole struct
If you're providing Foo_new and Foo_free methods only so you can allocate memory for a member of the Foo struct, you've lost the benefits and safety of automatic storage. You may as well have the new and free methods allocate memory for the whole struct, so users can pass it outside the scope it was defined, if they want.
The GNU Make Manual touches on how to automatically generate the dependencies of your object files from the source file's #includes. The example rule given in the manual is a bit complicated. Here's the rules I use:
# Have the compiler output dependency files with make targets for each
# of the object files. The `MT` option specifies the dependency file
# itself as a target, so that it's regenerated when it should be.
dependencies = $(objects:.o=.d)
%.d: %.c
$(CC) -M -MT '$(@:.d=.o) $@' $(CPPFLAGS) $< > $@
# Include each of those dependency files; Make will run the rule above
# to generate each dependency file (if it needs to).
-include $(dependencies)No excuses here. Always develop and compile with warnings on. It turns out, though, that -Wall and -Wextra actually don't enable "all" warnings. There are a few others that can actually be really helpful:
CFLAGS += -Wall -Wextra -Wpedantic \
-Wformat=2 -Wunused -Wno-unused-parameter -Wuninitialized \
-Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wold-style-definition \
-Wredundant-decls -Wnested-externs
# GCC warnings that Clang doesn't provide:
ifeq ($(CC),gcc)
CFLAGS += -Wjump-misses-init -Wlogical-op
endif