Issue 0256: multiple inclusion of headers

This issue has been automatically converted from the original issue lists and some formatting may not have been preserved.

Authors: Clive D.W. Feather <clive@demon.net>, UK C Panel
Date: 2001-09-07
Submitted against: C99
Status: Closed
Converted from: summary-c99.htm, dr_256.htm

Problem

Consider the code:

   #include <stdio.h>     // Line 1
    #undef FOPEN_MAX       // Line 2, permitted by 7.1.3#3    #include <stdio.h>     // Line 3    #ifdef FOPEN_MAX       // Line 4

7.1.2 says:

[#4] Standard headers may be included in any order; each may be included more than once in a given scope, with no effect different from being included only once, except that the effect of including <assert.h> depends on the definition of NDEBUG (see 7.2).

Does "with no effect different" mean:

1. the includes on lines 1 and 3 have the same effect, so at line 4 the macro FOPEN_MAX is defined;
2. the include on line 3 has no effect, so that at line 4 the macro FOPEN_MAX is undefined;
3. something else ?

Most current implementations wrap the contents of headers with an "idempotent guard", such as:

   #ifndef _STDIO_H_INCLUDED_
    #define _STDIO_H_INCLUDED_
    // Real contents go here   #endif

This will provide behaviour (2), which I would suggest is the most desirable.

Furthermore, the concept of scope doesn't apply here, both because includes happen during preprocessing and because there is a requirement in the same paragraph that:

If used, a header shall be included outside of any external declaration or definition,

If the wording is being altered, this would be a good opportunity to fix this as well.

Suggested Technical Corrigendum

Change the first sentence of 7.1.2#4 to:

[#4] Standard headers may be included in any order; each may be included any number of times in a preprocessing translation unit. The second and subsequent occurrences of a given header shall be ignored, except in the case of <assert.h> (where the behaviour is defined in subclause 7.2).

Comment from WG14 on 2002-03-06:

Committee Response

The Committee believe that both answer 1 and 2 are allowed, and does not see a compelling reason to change this.