Richard> If some major changes are being considered, I think it's
Richard> time to get rid of the:
Richard> do { } while(0) stuff that permiates a lot of MACROS and
Richard> just use the { } as they were designed.
Richard> Before everybody screams, think. It's perfectly correct
Richard> to start a new "program unit" without a conditional
Richard> expression. You just add a curley-brace, then close the
Richard> brace when you are though.
This is totally, totally wrong. If you get rid of do { } while (0),
then you can't use the macro in an if statement. Read any C FAQ for
details, or try the following:
#define MAC(x) { x = x + 1; }
int main() {
int x = 0;
if (1)
MAC(x);
else
x = x - 1;
}
I get the following (correct) error:
$ gcc a.c
a.c: In function `main':
a.c:8: syntax error before "else"
$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 3.2.3 20030502 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.3-20)
because
if (1)
{ x = x + 1 } ; /* <-- note semicolon
else
x = x - 1;
is not correct C.
By the way, it is possible to use parentheses and commas for some
simple macros, so for example the following is OK:
#define MAC(x) ( x = x + 1, x = x * 2 )
int main() {
int x = 0;
if (1)
MAC(x);
else
x = x - 1;
}
However I don't see anything wrong with the perfectly standard "do { }
while (0)" idiom. Certainly if some compiler generates worse code for
that construct that just a plain { }, _that_ is a compiler bug that we
shouldn't have to work around.
- Roland
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
_______________________________________________
Infiniband-general mailing list
Infiniband-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/infiniband-general