Thedo/while(0) pattern seen in many if not most macros in the Linux kernel and elsewhere has a specific purpose: It is the only construct in C that lets you define macros thatalways work the same way, so that a semicolon after your macro always has the same effect,regardless of how the macro is used (with particularly emphasis on the issue of nesting the macro in an if without curly-brackets).
Let's consider an example:
Say you used it like this:
This expands to:
So far, so good. That does what you intended. But let's consider usage like this:
This expands to:
Which is, if sanely formatted:
That likely isn't what you intended. As shown, it isn't possible to write multistatement macros that do the right thing in all situations. You can't make macros behave like functions—without do/while(0).
Let's revisit our original macro, wrapped in do/while(0):
Now, this statement is functionally equivalent to the former. The do ensures the logic inside the curly-brackets executes, the while(0) ensures that happens but once. Same as without the loop. So what's different? Let's look at using the macro. Again:
Which now becomes:
Which is the same as:
You might rejoin, why not just wrap the macro in curly-brackets? Why also have the do/while(0) logic?
This is why. Consider:
And:
This becomes:
Note the stray semicolon, which makes the else a dangling else. If you want people to be able to use your macro like a function and put semicolons where they belong, then this doesn't work.
Let's consider an example:
#define foo(x) bar(x); baz(x)
Say you used it like this:
foo(wolf);
This expands to:
bar(wolf); baz(wolf);
So far, so good. That does what you intended. But let's consider usage like this:
if (!feral) foo(wolf); |
This expands to:
if (!feral) bar(wolf); baz(wolf); |
Which is, if sanely formatted:
if (!feral) bar(wolf); baz(wolf); |
That likely isn't what you intended. As shown, it isn't possible to write multistatement macros that do the right thing in all situations. You can't make macros behave like functions—without do/while(0).
Let's revisit our original macro, wrapped in do/while(0):
#define foo(x) do { bar(x); baz(x); } while (0)
Now, this statement is functionally equivalent to the former. The do ensures the logic inside the curly-brackets executes, the while(0) ensures that happens but once. Same as without the loop. So what's different? Let's look at using the macro. Again:
if (!feral) foo(wolf); |
Which now becomes:
if (!feral) do { bar(wolf); baz(wolf); } while (0); |
Which is the same as:
if (!feral) { bar(wolf); baz(wolf); } |
You might rejoin, why not just wrap the macro in curly-brackets? Why also have the do/while(0) logic?
This is why. Consider:
#define foo(x) { bar(x); baz(x); }
And:
if (!feral) foo(wolf); else bin(wolf); |
This becomes:
if (!feral) { bar(wolf); baz(wolf); }; else bin(wolf); |
Note the stray semicolon, which makes the else a dangling else. If you want people to be able to use your macro like a function and put semicolons where they belong, then this doesn't work.