Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!
Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.
What is do { } while(0) in macros and should we use it?
Background
I can see the need to use { }
when implementing a function-like macro such as this one:
#define HCF(code) fprintf(stderr, "halt and catch fire"); exit(code);
Because if we use the following calling code
bool bad = false;
if(bad)
HCF(0xDEADBEEF);
printf("good");
Then it will expand to
bool bad = false;
if(bad)
fprintf(stderr, "halt and catch fire");
exit(0xDEADBEEF);
printf("good");
which was not the intention - it will now exit with an error code even though the program is working as intended.
So the correct way would be to write the macro like this instead:
#define HCF(code) { fprintf(stderr, "halt and catch fire"); exit(code); }
Question
But I've come across macros that instead of just plain braces { }
uses this:
#define HCF(code) do { fprintf(stderr, "halt and catch fire"); \
exit(code); } while(0)
This seems similar to { }
but more obscure. What's the purpose of this do { } while(0)
and why should it be used instead of { }
?
2 answers
Reasons to use the construct #define FOO(x) do{...} while(0);
:
-
As mentioned above, doing so solves the problem of
if (...) FOO(y);
-
You can declare variables inside the block, and they harmlessly go out of scope at the end of the block. Without the
do{}
block, the same symbol would cause a warning (or worse) if it were declared elsewhere in the block in whichFOO(x)
gets expanded.Why declare variables inside a macro? In case a macro argument appears more than once in the body, and someone writes
FOO(func(y))
, wherefunc
has side effects. This includesFOO(y++)
etc. After the macro expands, the side effect would happen as many times as the macro argument appears in the body!Declaring a variable inside a do {} block prevents this, as follows:
#define FOO(x) do { long xx = x; func2(xx); func3(xx); } while (0);
Obviously there is still an assumption about type of
x
, but that is the case anyway if you are going to be callingfunc2(x)
etc. -
Without the
do{}
block, there might be ambiguity as to whetherFOO(x)
expands into a statement or an expression.do{}
makes it clearly a statement, which can help catch someone trying to useFOO(x)
where an expression is expected. See also: "statement-expressions", aka({...})
, which is a construct in case you want the block to be an expression rather than a statement.
The following users marked this post as Works for me:
User | Comment | Date |
---|---|---|
Lundin | (no comment) | Dec 23, 2022 at 07:48 |
The sole purpose of the do { } while(0)
is to write macros that accommodates to all manner of diverse coding styles. It is quite common not to use braces after if
statements, so this is a common coding style:
if(bad)
HCF(0xDEADBEEF);
else
printf("good");
If we only used braces as in the first example in the question, it would expand to:
if(bad)
{
fprintf(stderr, "halt and catch fire");
exit(0xDEADBEEF);
}; // oops
else
printf("good");
The semicolon written during macro invocation would result in a syntax error "else without previous if" etc. The purpose of do { } while(0)
is to swallow up that stray semicolon. Note the lack of semicolon after while(0)
which is otherwise the custom in do-while loops:
#define HCF(code) do { fprintf(stderr, "halt and catch fire"); \
exit(code); } while(0)
expands to
if(bad)
do
{
fprintf(stderr, "halt and catch fire");
exit(0xDEADBEEF);
}while(0);
else
printf("good");
Which is perfectly valid C. If your purpose was to write a widely portable macro as part of a library or similar, you can probably stop reading here and feel all smug about this neat trick.
However, if your purpose is to write safe C code and only allow safe C code to compile, there is reason to question the purpose of do { } while(0)
.
Several industry coding standards (MISRA-C, CERT C etc) heavily discourage the style of using control/loop statements without braces {}, since it enables us to write common bugs such as this one:
if(bad)
fprintf(stderr, "halt and catch fire");
exit(0xDEADBEEF);
Where the indention fools us to believe that exit is only executed if bad
is true. These kind of bugs are particularly common during code maintenance.
One of the most expensive bugs in software history is the infamous "Apple goto fail", which was caused by some version control hiccup. If this code had gone through static analysis before production and the company coding standard enforced {}
after each if
statement, the bug would have been found.
So there are good reasons to always enforce {}
in your coding style. I was once in favour of the if
without braces style myself, since it makes the code more compact. However, I have converted to the "always use {}
camp" over the years. Other seasoned C programmers I have spoken to have done the same, coming to this conclusion by themselves, rather than having it enforced by a coding standard, after having written numerous missing {}
bugs.
So lets assume that we want to use the {}
style, always. The do { } while(0)
macro style then suddenly turns harmful - because it will allow control/loop statements without braces to compile. Whereas the {}
macro style will yield a compiler error because of the stray semicolon - and now we realize that's a good thing.
0 comment threads