Use of do...while(0) in ASSERT macro

[Martin]

Can anyone help with a quick query...

I've seen the ASSERT macro defined as:
#define ASSERT(f) \
do { \
if (!(f) && assertFailedOnL ine (THIS_FILE, __LINE__)) \
FatalExit (0); \
} while (0) \
When I comple this in debug mode the compiler warns "conditiona l
expression is constant", because of the while (0). Why is the ASSERT
macro defined this way? The loop only runs once so why not get rid of
the do..while and use:
#define ASSERT(f) \
if (!(f) && assertFailedOnL ine (THIS_FILE, __LINE__)) \
FatalExit (0); \
This also gets rid of the compiler warning.

Is there any reason to use the first definition?

Martin

[Jeremy Yallop]

Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:

Richard Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> spoke thus:

[

#define ASSERT(f) \
if (!(f) && assertFailedOnL ine(__FILE__, __LINE__)) \
FatalExit (0); ] ...works just fine without the do/while(0) silliness.

Does that mean that the do/while(0) bit is merely an obfuscating
device?

No. It is a device to increase the robustness of the code. Without
the do/while wrapper the macro will work in certain circumstances, but
have silently incorrect behaviour if used as the body of a braceless
"if" statement (which has a matching "else"). In this particular case
the macro /can/ be written to have the correct behaviour without
do/while:

#define ASSERT(f) \
(void)((!f || assertFailedOnL ine(__FILE__, __LINE__)) && (FatalExit(0), 0))

but if the macro must expand to multiple /statements/ then the
do/while trick (or something similar) is needed for the macro to have
the correct behaviour.
Jeremy.

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

Jeremy Yallop wrote:

#define ASSERT(f) \
(void)((!f || assertFailedOnL ine(__FILE__, __LINE__)) && (FatalExit(0), 0))

`!(f)', not `!f'.

--
Hallvard

[Jeremy Yallop]

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:

Jeremy Yallop wrote:

#define ASSERT(f) \
(void)((!f || assertFailedOnL ine(__FILE__, __LINE__)) && (FatalExit(0), 0))

`!(f)', not `!f'.

Thanks, good catch.

Jeremy.

[Richard Heathfield]

Christian Bau wrote:

In article <bp**********@s parta.btinterne t.com>,
Richard Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> wrote:

Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:

> Richard Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> spoke thus:
>
>> ...works just fine without the do/while(0) silliness.
>
> Does that mean that the do/while(0) bit is merely an obfuscating
> device?

If you write:

if(foo)
bar();

then no, it is not.

If you write:

if(foo)
{
bar();
}

then yes, it is.

If you think that removing the braces in

if(foo)
{
bar();
}

shouldn't cause any problems, then it isn't.

But if you aren't ever going to do that, because you'd rather gnaw off your
own leg than use a single-statement if, then it is.

Over to you, Christian. :-)

--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.pow ernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

[Alex]

Richard Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> wrote:

Christian Bau wrote:

In article <bp**********@s parta.btinterne t.com>,
Richard Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> wrote:

Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:

> Richard Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> spoke thus:
>

If you write:

if(foo)
{
bar();
}

then yes, it is.

If you think that removing the braces in

if(foo)
{
bar();
}

shouldn't cause any problems, then it isn't.

But if you aren't ever going to do that, because you'd rather gnaw off your
own leg than use a single-statement if, then it is.

But if the person maintaining your code is not in the same
state of mind?

Alex

[Richard Heathfield]

Alex wrote:

Richard Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> wrote:

Christian Bau wrote:

In article <bp**********@s parta.btinterne t.com>,
Richard Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> wrote:

Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:

> Richard Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> spoke thus:
>

If you write:

if(foo)
{
bar();
}

then yes, it is.

If you think that removing the braces in

if(foo)
{
bar();
}

shouldn't cause any problems, then it isn't.

But if you aren't ever going to do that, because you'd rather gnaw off
your own leg than use a single-statement if, then it is.

But if the person maintaining your code is not in the same
state of mind?

Then I'd be beside myself. :-)

Seriously, it's a reasonable point, but in my defence[1] I generally do my
level best to get the coding standards at a client site changed to mandate
compound statements if they don't already do so. I've had some degree of
success with this. :-)

--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.pow ernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:18:33 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

Seriously, it's a reasonable point, but in my defence[1] I generally do my
level best to get the coding standards at a client site changed to mandate
compound statements if they don't already do so. I've had some degree of
success with this. :-)

As in:

if ( x )
{
y();
}

This is, IMO, bad. It clutters code with unnecessary crud. If it helps
because y might be some mucked-up macro that does weird things with block
levels or other sorts of nastiness, I'd tend to focus on the problem -
the macro - rather than this sort of approach.

Then again, I'd tend to try to disallow macros beyond the most trivial in
the first place - use a function, not a macro, if it needs to "do things".

[Richard Heathfield]

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

[snips]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:18:33 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

I generally do
my level best to get the coding standards at a client site changed to
mandate compound statements if they don't already do so. I've had some
degree of success with this. :-)
As in:

if ( x )
{
y();
}

Yes, precisely. Well, not quite as much whitespace. I'd prefer:

if(0 != x)
{
y();
}

This is, IMO, bad.
That doesn't surprise me, but I must disagree with you.
It clutters code with unnecessary crud.
That's a negative description. Here's a positive one to balance: it
emphasises the logical structure of the code.
If it helps
because y might be some mucked-up macro that does weird things with block
levels or other sorts of nastiness, I'd tend to focus on the problem -
the macro - rather than this sort of approach.
No, the macro isn't the problem. People are the problem. They /will/ keep
turning this:

if(w != x)
y();

into this:

if(w != x)
y();
z();

and then wondering why z() is called more often than they expected. (Utter
foolishness, I know.)

No, I'm perfectly happy with my bracing style, thanks - even if you disagree
with it.
Then again, I'd tend to try to disallow macros beyond the most trivial in
the first place - use a function, not a macro, if it needs to "do things".

There are certain rather obvious uses for macros. (Bit-twiddling is one.
Wrapping __FILE__ and __LINE__ is another.)
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.pow ernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

[Sheldon Simms]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 06:42:58 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

No, the macro isn't the problem. People are the problem. They /will/ keep
turning this:

if(w != x)
y();

into this:

if(w != x)
y();
z();

and then wondering why z() is called more often than they expected. (Utter
foolishness, I know.)

No, I'm perfectly happy with my bracing style, thanks - even if you disagree
with it.

I'm going to offer what may be an odd opinion. I don't follow your style
Richard; I like to use single statements without braces after if(). I have
never seen a single case in which a programmer actually had any problem
with this style. But I would support mandatory bracing in a coding
standards document because I think it makes the code easier to read when
more than one person is working on it.

[John Devereux]

Richard Heathfield <do******@addre ss.co.uk.invali d> writes:

Yes, precisely. Well, not quite as much whitespace. I'd prefer:

if(0 != x)
{
y();
}
<SNIP>
No, the macro isn't the problem. People are the problem. They /will/ keep
turning this:

if(w != x)
y();

into this:

if(w != x)
y();
z();

and then wondering why z() is called more often than they expected. (Utter
foolishness, I know.)

What is wrong with simply

if(x) y();

???

--

John Devereux