From time to time I see this code:
#define X1 (13)
#define X2 ((size_t)13)
As I understand, the (outer) ()
are redundant here. Is that correct?
UPD: Some software development guidelines may require it.
For example: MISRA C:2004, Rule 19.4 (required):
C macros shall only expand to a braced initialiser, a constant, a parenthesised expression, a type qualifier, a storage class specifier, or a do-while-zero construct.
However, MISRA C:2012 has:
#define MY_NULL_2 ( void * ) 0
#define sqrt( x ) ( _BUILTIN_sqrt ( x ) )
CodePudding user response:
I don't believe the first example needs parentheses, but always parenthesizing macro bodies is a reasonable habit.
The second one will produce unexpected grouping if you remove the outer parentheses from the definition and then invoke it in the context X2[a]
.
CodePudding user response:
As I understand, the (outer) () are redundant here. Is that correct?
In the first case, (13)
can cause a problem. See below.
In the the 2nd case ((size_t)13)
tends to prevent problems as it insures the cast (which does not have top order of precedence) is applied to only 13
and not some following code.
The ()
in #define X1 (13)
have a disadvantage. Consider stringification.
As (80)
, the incorrect format string is formed.
#define STRINGIFY(x) #x
#define TOSTRING(x) STRINGIFY(x)
#define BUFFER_LEN_WITH (80)
#define BUFFER_LEN_WITHOUT 80
// Could have used either BUFFER_LEN_WITH, BUFFER_LEN_WITHOUT here.
#define BUFFER_SIZE (BUFFER_LEN_WITHOUT 1)
int main(void) {
char buffer[BUFFER_SIZE];
printf("Format: <%s>\n", "%" TOSTRING( BUFFER_LEN_WITH) "s");
printf("Format: <%s>\n", "%" TOSTRING( BUFFER_LEN_WITHOUT) "s");
int count = scanf("%" TOSTRING( BUFFER_LEN_WITHOUT) "s", buffer);
if (count == 1) {
printf("<%s>\n", buffer);
}
}
Output
Format: <%(80)s> <-- Wrong format
Format: <