To get a trial key
fill out the form below
Team License (standard version)
Enterprise License (extended version)
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

** This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Request our prices
New License
License Renewal
--Select currency--
USD
EUR
GBP
RUB
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

** This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
To get the licence for your open-source project, please fill out this form
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

** This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
To get the licence for your open-source project, please fill out this form
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

** This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
I am interested to try it on the platforms:
* By clicking this button you agree to our Privacy Policy statement

** This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Message submitted.

Your message has been sent. We will email you at


If you haven't received our response, please do the following:
check your Spam/Junk folder and click the "Not Spam" button for our message.
This way, you won't miss messages from our team in the future.

>
>
Farewell to #define private public

Farewell to #define private public

Apr 24 2012
Author:

The C++ language, compilers and libraries are heading yet farther towards a stricter control over what programmers write. It is good. All of you probably heard jokes about #define true ((rand() % 100) < 95 ? true : false). But joking apart, the possibility to redefine keywords makes a program very difficult to understand or leads to strange errors.

In the new Visual Studio 11 a check is created to detect redefined keywords. The following text in the xkeycheck.h file is responsible for doing this:

#else /* __cplusplus is defined */ 
#if defined(alignas) /* check C++ keywords */ \ 
|| defined(alignof) \ 
|| defined(asm) \ 
|| defined(auto) \ 
|| defined(bool) \ 
|| defined(break) \ 
|| defined(case) \ 
|| defined(catch) \ 
|| defined(char) \ 
|| defined(char16_t) \ 
|| defined(char32_t) \ 
|| defined(class) \ 
|| defined(const) \ 
|| defined(const_cast) \ 
|| defined(constexpr) \ 
|| defined(continue) \ 
|| defined(decltype) \ 
|| defined(default) \ 
|| defined(delete) \ 
|| defined(do) \ 
|| defined(double) \ 
|| defined(dynamic_cast) \ 
|| defined(else) \ 
|| defined(enum) \ 
|| defined(explicit) \ 
|| defined(export) \ 
|| defined(extern) \ 
|| defined(false) \ 
|| defined(float) \ 
|| defined(for) \ 
|| defined(friend) \ 
|| defined(goto) \ 
|| defined(if) \ 
|| defined(inline) \ 
|| defined(int) \ 
|| defined(long) \ 
|| defined(mutable) \ 
|| defined(namespace) \ 
|| defined(new) && defined(_ENFORCE_BAN_OF_MACRO_NEW) \ 
|| defined(noexcept) \ 
|| defined(nullptr) \ 
|| defined(operator) \ 
|| defined(private) \ 
|| defined(protected) \ 
|| defined(public) \ 
|| defined(register) \ 
|| defined(reinterpret_cast) \ 
|| defined(return) \ 
|| defined(short) \ 
|| defined(signed) \ 
|| defined(sizeof) \ 
|| defined(static) \ 
|| defined(static_assert) \ 
|| defined(static_cast) \ 
|| defined(struct) \ 
|| defined(switch) \ 
|| defined(template) \ 
|| defined(this) \ 
|| defined(thread_local) \ 
|| defined(throw) \ 
|| defined(true) \ 
|| defined(try) \ 
|| defined(typedef) \ 
|| defined(typeid) \ 
|| defined(typename) \ 
|| defined(union) \ 
|| defined(unsigned) \ 
|| defined(using) \ 
|| defined(virtual) \ 
|| defined(void) \ 
|| defined(volatile) \ 
|| defined(wchar_t) \ 
|| defined(while) 
#error keyword defined before including C++ standard header 
#endif /* defined... */ 
#endif /* defined(__cplusplus) */ 
#endif /* RC_INVOKED */ 
#endif /* _XKEYCHECK_H */

If you are planning to use Visual C++ 11 soon, you can try to fix the code where you use redefining of keywords beforehand. It is most often used in various tests. For example, to get access to closed class members in tests, the following method is used:

#define private public
#define protected public

Now this code will not be able to compile. For example, we faced this error when trying to build the source codes of the Doom 3 game with Visual C++ 11 (the TypeInfo.cpp file).

We wish you using as few cheating methods as possible. They help you save time in the near-term outlook, but they will sooner or later reveal themselves when changing a platform/compiler, and you will have to rewrite them.

Popular related articles
How PVS-Studio Proved to Be More Attentive Than Three and a Half Programmers

Date: Oct 22 2018

Author: Andrey Karpov

Just like other static analyzers, PVS-Studio often produces false positives. What you are about to read is a short story where I'll tell you how PVS-Studio proved, just one more time, to be more atte…
Technologies used in the PVS-Studio code analyzer for finding bugs and potential vulnerabilities

Date: Nov 21 2018

Author: Andrey Karpov

A brief description of technologies used in the PVS-Studio tool, which let us effectively detect a large number of error patterns and potential vulnerabilities. The article describes the implementati…
Free PVS-Studio for those who develops open source projects

Date: Dec 22 2018

Author: Andrey Karpov

On the New 2019 year's eve, a PVS-Studio team decided to make a nice gift for all contributors of open-source projects hosted on GitHub, GitLab or Bitbucket. They are given free usage of PVS-Studio s…
PVS-Studio ROI

Date: Jan 30 2019

Author: Andrey Karpov

Occasionally, we're asked a question, what monetary value the company will receive from using PVS-Studio. We decided to draw up a response in the form of an article and provide tables, which will sho…
PVS-Studio for Java

Date: Jan 17 2019

Author: Andrey Karpov

In the seventh version of the PVS-Studio static analyzer, we added support of the Java language. It's time for a brief story of how we've started making support of the Java language, how far we've co…
The Last Line Effect

Date: May 31 2014

Author: Andrey Karpov

I have studied many errors caused by the use of the Copy-Paste method, and can assure you that programmers most often tend to make mistakes in the last fragment of a homogeneous code block. I have ne…
Characteristics of PVS-Studio Analyzer by the Example of EFL Core Libraries, 10-15% of False Positives

Date: Jul 31 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

After I wrote quite a big article about the analysis of the Tizen OS code, I received a large number of questions concerning the percentage of false positives and the density of errors (how many erro…
Appreciate Static Code Analysis!

Date: Oct 16 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

I am really astonished by the capabilities of static code analysis even though I am one of the developers of PVS-Studio analyzer myself. The tool surprised me the other day as it turned out to be sma…
Static analysis as part of the development process in Unreal Engine

Date: Jun 27 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

Unreal Engine continues to develop as new code is added and previously written code is changed. What is the inevitable consequence of ongoing development in a project? The emergence of new bugs in th…
The Evil within the Comparison Functions

Date: May 19 2017

Author: Andrey Karpov

Perhaps, readers remember my article titled "Last line effect". It describes a pattern I've once noticed: in most cases programmers make an error in the last line of similar text blocks. Now I want t…

Comments (0)

Next comments

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
This website uses cookies and other technology to provide you a more personalized experience. By continuing the view of our web-pages you accept the terms of using these files. If you don't want your personal data to be processed, please, leave this site.
Learn More →
Accept