Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:49:56 +0000 From: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org>, Jonathan Anderson <jonathan@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r224721 - head/sys/sys Message-ID: <20110810154956.GA4034@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20110810230856.M2222@besplex.bde.org> References: <201108082036.p78KarlR062810@svn.freebsd.org> <20110809105824.P896@besplex.bde.org> <20110810103831.GA60858@freebsd.org> <20110810230856.M2222@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed Aug 10 11, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
>
> >On Tue Aug 9 11, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >>...
> >>What is wrong with the existing APIs TIMEVAL_TO_TIMESPEC() and
> >>TIMESPEC_TO_TIMEVAL(), which are used for these conversions by almost
> >>everything now? Well, quite a bit is wrong with them, starting with
> >>...
> >
> >any reason {TIMEVAL,TIMESPEC}_TO_{TIMESPEC,TIMEVAL}()s code is being
> >executed
> >in a
> >
> >do { ... } while (0)
> >
> >conditional loop?
>
> Just the usual syntactical trick for making large macros that look
> like function calls almost usable like function calls. Without the
> do-while trick, code like
>
> if (foo)
> TIMEVAL_TO_TIMESPEC(&tv, &ts);
>
> would be fragile at best. With an else clause added to it, it would expand
> to either
>
> if (foo)
> first_statement_of_macro;
> second_statement_of_macro; ;
> else
> ...
>
> which is obviously broken (3 statements between the 'if' and the 'else'
> give a syntax error). We partially fix this by putting outer braces in
> the macro:
>
> if (foo)
> /*
> * Here I attempt to duplicate the ugly indentation,
> * that tends to be preserved on expansion, which is
> * given by style bugs in the macro definition. See
> * sys/queue.h for similar definitions without these
> * style bugs.
> */
> {
> first_statement_of_macro;
> second_statement_of_macro;
> } ;
> else
> ...
>
> This might work without the else clause, but with the else clause it
> is still a syntax error, since there are still too many statements
> between the 'if' and the 'else' -- we want to add the semicolon after
> the macro invocation, since the macro invocation looks like a function
> call, but this semicolon gives an extra statement and thus defeats the
> reduction to a single statement in the macro be using braces.
>
> With the trick, and without the style bugs, the above expands to:
>
> if (foo)
> do {
> first_statement_of_macro;
> second_statement_of_macro;
> } while (0) ;
> else
> ...
>
> Now there is only 1 statement between the 'if' and the 'else', since we
> trickily made the macro a non-statement that works after adding a semicolon
> to it -- the semicolon completes the statement, and the do-while is a
> trick that works (I don't know of any other).
>
> >both macros are also defined in crypto/openssh/defines.h and
> >don't seem to need that extra one-time-loop.
>
> Macros that are only used locally can be sloppier, but shouldn't be.
thanks a lot for the in depth information. :) any reason, back in the days, it
was decided that the functionality of converting a timespec to a timeval and
vice versa should be implemented as a macro and not a function?
cheers.
alex
>
> Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110810154956.GA4034>