[ktrzcinx]

#1954

[dbaluta]

No need for curly braces around trace_ipc_error here.

[ktrzcinx]

I need because it is a macro

[paulstelian97]

The trace_* macros have been written to act like functions from the point of view of using them so no, the braces aren't needed.

[dbaluta]

@ktrzcinx do you mean that if we have something like this

if (ret < 0) 
    trace_();
foo();

and the trace_() expands to nothing then we are in big trouble?

[dbaluta]

I'm OK with the code as it is now, but we should keep this discussion open.

[ktrzcinx]

I claim that when trace_* expands to nothing then it will be ok, but when trace_* expand to any code with more than one line of code without { } inside then it won't. It will be need to spend much more time to debug what happen in such a situation in comparison with usage redundant parenthesis. I know that such a macro function is not a good solution but it is open source project and when using extra {} I know that I am safe for such a situation. Such a situation is not a big abstraction, also in tracing functions, for example:

#define trace(obj_ptr,msg,...) \ 
   typeof(obj_ptr) __obj_ptr__ = obj_ptr; \
   _log_fun(__obj_ptr__ ->id, __obj_ptr__ ->parent_id, __VA_ARGS__)

or

#define trace(obj_ptr,msg,...) \ 
   flush_logs(); \
   _log_fun(obj_ptr->id, obj_ptr->parent_id, __VA_ARGS__)

Now

if (ret < 0)
   trace(obj,"blah");
foo();

will trace independently ret value but my solution will still work correctly. There also won't be any compilation error and a lot of tests should pass. In conclusion, I rather prefer defensive programming with extra {} from debugging.