do{}while(0)的意义

csdn's FAQ:

---------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------

#define  wait_event(wq,condition)  /

do{  if(condition)  break;  __wait_event(wq,condition);  }while(0)

#define  macro(condition)  if(condition)  dosomething();

if(temp)
macro(i);
else
doanotherthing();

if(temp)
if(condition)  dosomething();
else
doanotherthing();

---------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------

****************************************************************

FAQ FROM CSDN:

FAQ/DoWhile0

Why do a lot of #defines in the kernel use do { ... } while(0)?

There are a couple of reasons:

• (from Dave Miller) Empty statements give a warning from the compiler so this is why you see #define FOO do { } while(0).

• (from Dave Miller) It gives you a basic block in which to declare local variables.

• (from Ben Collins) It allows you to use more complex macros in conditional code. Imagine a macro of several lines of code like:

#define FOO(x) /
printf("arg is %s/n", x); /
do_something_useful(x);


Now imagine using it like:

if (blah == 2)
FOO(blah);


This interprets to:

if (blah == 2)
printf("arg is %s/n", blah);
do_something_useful(blah);;


As you can see, the if then only encompasses the printf(), and the do_something_useful() call is unconditional (not within the scope of the if), like you wanted it. So, by using a block like do { ... } while(0), you would get this:

if (blah == 2)
do {
printf("arg is %s/n", blah);
do_something_useful(blah);
} while (0);


Which is exactly what you want.

• (from Per Persson) As both Miller and Collins point out, you want a block statement so you can have several lines of code and declare local variables. But then the natural thing would be to just use for example:

#define exch(x,y) { int tmp; tmp=x; x=y; y=tmp; }


However that wouldn't work in some cases. The following code is meant to be an if-statement with two branches:

if (x > y)
exch(x,y);          // Branch 1
else
do_something();     // Branch 2


But it would be interpreted as an if-statement with only one branch:

if (x > y) {                // Single-branch if-statement!!!
int tmp;            // The one and only branch consists
tmp = x;            // of the block.
x = y;
y = tmp;
}
;                           // empty statement
else                        // ERROR!!! "parse error before else"
do_something();


The problem is the semi-colon (;) coming directly after the block. The solution for this is to sandwich the block between do and while (0). Then we have a single statement with the capabilities of a block, but not considered as being a block statement by the compiler. Our if-statement now becomes:

if (x > y)
do {
int tmp;
tmp = x;
x = y;
y = tmp;
} while(0);
else
do_something();

• 5
点赞
• 10
收藏
• 打赏
• 4
评论
11-04 2万+
11-13 1052
02-15 4285
04-01 4048
05-02 1万+
05-22 1610
10-03 505
02-01 2万+

“相关推荐”对你有帮助么？

• 非常没帮助
• 没帮助
• 一般
• 有帮助
• 非常有帮助

chenhu_doc

¥2 ¥4 ¥6 ¥10 ¥20

1.余额是钱包充值的虚拟货币，按照1:1的比例进行支付金额的抵扣。
2.余额无法直接购买下载，可以购买VIP、C币套餐、付费专栏及课程。