问题
Possible Duplicate:
Why are there sometimes meaningless do/while and if/else statements in C/C++ macros?
I met code like below:
#define ev_io_init(ev,cb,fd,events) \
do { \
ev_init ((ev), (cb)); \
ev_io_set ((ev),(fd),(events)); \
} while (0)
I want to know why the author use do { } while (0)
here.
Is there any difference with this?
#define ev_io_init(ev,cb,fd,events) { \
ev_init ((ev), (cb)); \
ev_io_set ((ev),(fd),(events)); \
}
BTW: the code is from libev, ev_local.h
回答1:
Consider if( something ) function1(); else function2();
If function1()
is actually a macro, just using { }
requires you to omit the semicolon at the point of use, but do { } while(0)
lets you use exactly the same syntax as for a real function.
(Not using any kind of block construct at all would just generate completely broken code, natch)
回答2:
Enclosing code with a loop allows for a preprocessor directive to execute multiple statements without "breaking" if-else-constructs. Consider the following:
#define DO_SOMETHING() a();b();c();
void foo()
{
// This is ok...
DO_SOMETHING();
}
void bar()
{
// ...whereas this would trigger an error.
if (condition)
DO_SOMETHING();
else
blah();
}
The second example breaks the if-else-construct because three statements are followed by an else
clause. To allow for it to correctly substitute, the instructions in DO_SOMETHING
should be enclosed with a do { ... } while(0)
.
回答3:
A do{}while(0)
allows you to break from the loop:
do{
expr1;
foo();
if ( cond )
break;
expr2;
goo();
} while (0);
It's the same as a simple block {...}
except that you can break execution when you want with the break
statement. You couldn't do that in a simple code block, unless you have multiple checks, which can get cumbersome. It still gets executed once, because of the condition while(0)
.
来源:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9495962/why-use-do-while-0-in-macro-definition