【C语言】 Linux内核源码-- do...while(0)解析

为什么在内核中碰到很多  #define ...  do{...} while(0) ？

有以下几点原因:

1、空语句在编译的时候会出现警告，所以有必要用#define FOO do{ } while(0)

2、给定一个基本块，可以在里面定义局部变量

3、为了能够在条件语句中使用复杂的宏定义。例如下面这段代码：

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

如果这样用：

 if (blah == 2)
     F00(blah);

宏展开之后为

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

这样，if条件之后包含了printf()语句，而do_something_useful()调用不能按照预期那样工作。而是用do {...} while(0)定义后，就会展开成以下语句：

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

}while(0);

这是我们所期望的。

如果你希望定义一个包含多行语句和一些局部变量的时候. 一般的定义方式只能这样:

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

然而在某些情况下，这样并不能正常工作. 下面是包含两个分支的if语句:

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

但这样却只能展开成单分支的if语句，如下:

　if (x > y) {                // 单分支if
　　int tmp;
　　tmp = x;
　　x = y;
　　y = tmp;
　}
　;                           // 空语句
　　else                        // 错误!!! "parse error before else"
　　do_something();

问题是由于在语句块后直接加入分号（;）引起的. 解决办法是将语句块放入 do 和 while (0)中间.这样就得到了一条单语句, 而不是被编译器判断为语句块.现在的if语句如下:

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

假设有这样一个宏定义  

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

现在在程序中这样使用这个宏：  

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

一切看起来很正常，但是仔细想想。这个宏会展开成：  

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

这时的else不是与第一个if语句匹配，而是错误的与第二个if语句进行了匹配，编译通过了，但是运行的结果一定是错误的。  

为了避免这个错误，我们使用do{….}while(0)  把它包裹起来，成为一个独立的语法单元，从而不会与上下文发生混淆。同时因为绝大多数的编译器都能够识别do{…}while(0)这种无用的循环并进行优化，所以使用这种方法也不会导致程序的性能降低。  


参考网站：https://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ/DoWhile0

原文如下：

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();
  

• (from Bart Trojanowski) gcc adds Statement-Expressions which provide an alternative to the do-while-0 block. They provide the above mentioned benefits and are slightly more legible.

  #define FOO(arg) ({         \
             typeof(arg) lcl; \
             lcl = bar(arg);  \
             lcl;             \
      })