do{}while(0)的意义

csdn's FAQ:

一直以为Linux里面，那些do{}while(0)只是为了程序的源代码看起来比较好看而已  
今天听说他是有特殊作用的，在线请教，是什么作用？  
---------------------------------------------------------------  
 
是为了解决使用宏的时候烦人的分号问题。  
---------------------------------------------------------------  
 
楼说的不是很全面，我给个例子吧  
 
#define  wait_event(wq,condition)  /  
 
do{  if(condition)  break;  __wait_event(wq,condition);  }while(0)  
 
这是一个奇怪的循环，它根本就只会运行一次，为什么不去掉外面的do{..}while结构呢？我曾一度在心里把它叫做“怪圈”。原来这也是非常巧妙的技巧。在工程中可能经常会引起麻烦，而上面的定义能够保证这些麻烦不会出现。下面是解释：  
 
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。  
 
---------------------------------------------------------------  
 
可是直接用{}括起来的话，最后的分号会引起麻烦的  
---------------------------------------------------------------  
 
但这样就一定要在最后加分号，不能当作表达式用了。  
唉，还是尽量避免用宏替换的方法，太容易出现问题了。

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

FAQ FROM 优快云:

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();