Re: [PATCH] genirq: ARM dyntick cleanup

["Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@xenotime.net>]

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 16:53:22 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> > 
> > OK, I'll bite.  What part of Linus's macro doesn't work.
> 
> Heh. This is "C language 101".

Yes, I got most of that.  :)
more below.

> The reason we always write
> 
> 	#define empty_statement do { } while (0)
> 
> instead of
> 
> 	#define empty_statement /* empty */
> 
> is not that
> 
> 	if (x)
> 		empty_statement;
> 
> wouldn't work like Arjan claimed, but because otherwise the empty 
> statement won't parse perfectly as a real C statement.
> 
> In particular, you tend to get much better error messages if you have 
> syntax errors _around_ the empty statement if it's done as that 
> "do { } while (0)" thing. You also avoid compiler warnings about 
> empty statements or statements without effects, that you'd get if you were 
> to use
> 
> 	#define empty_statement /* empty */
> 
> or
> 
> 	#define empty_statement 0
> 
> for example (a expression statement is a perfectly valid statement, as is 
> an empty one, but many compilers will warn on them).
> 
> It's also simply good practice - if you _always_ do the "do { } while (0)" 
> thing, you'll never get bitten by having a macro that has several 
> statements inside of it, and you'll also never get bitten by a macro that 
> is _meant_ to be used as a statement being used as part of an expression 
> instead.
> 
> It basically boils down to the fact that the "do { } while (0)" format is 
> always syntactically correct, /regardless/ of what is inside of the 
> braces, and should always give you meaningful error messages regardless of 
> what is _around_ the macro usage.

Yes, I already understood that.  I was interested in Arjan's
specific example, which was:

if (foo())
	zyzzy();

in which he supplied the terminating semi-colon, and which Andrew
explained with the -W warning...

> For example:
> 
> 	if (a)
> 		empty_statement
> 	b;
> 
> will give the _correct_ syntax error message ("expected ';'"), instead of 
> silently turning into
> 
> 	if (a)
> 		b;
> 
> or other nonsense.

OK, good practice, yes.

> But in the end, the real aim is to just teach your fingers to _always_ put 
> the do/while(0) there, so that you never EVER write something like
> 
> 	#define MACRO one; two;
> 
> which really breaks down.
> 
> This is, btw, the same reason a lot of people (including me, most of the 
> time) will write
> 
> 	#define VALUE (12)
> 
> instead of writing the simpler
> 
> 	#define VALUE 12
> 
> just because it's good practice to _always_ have the parentheses around 
> a macro that ends up being used as an expression.
> 
> So we always also write
> 
> 	#define ADD(a,b) ((a)+(b))
> 
> because otherwise you eventually _will_ get bitten (we've had that 
> particular bug bite us in the *ss lots of times, even though people should 
> know better)

Yes, I have the () macro practice down.  I was just looking for the
problem with that one specific example, which you and Andrew have now
explained.  Thanks.

---
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/