views:

736

answers:

10

I am looking at some C code, and have noticed it is full of these curly braces surrounding blocks of code without any sort of control structure. Take a look-see:

//do some stuff . . .
fprintf(stderr, "%.2f sec\n", (float)(clock() - t) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC);
{
    //a block! why not?
    char *tmp_argv[3];
    tmp_argv[0] = argv[0]; tmp_argv[1] = str; tmp_argv[2] = prefix;
    t = clock();
    fprintf(stderr, "[bwa_index] Convert nucleotide PAC to color PAC... ");
    bwa_pac2cspac(3, tmp_argv);
    fprintf(stderr, "%.2f sec\n", (float)(clock() - t) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC);
}

Why would you insert blocks like this in the code? It is chock full of 'em. Is there some kind of performance benefit? Some mystical C thing? Why???

edit: This code if from BWA, a bioinformatics program that aligns small sequences to large reference ones using the Burrows-Wheeler transform, in case any of you were wondering. This code example isn't particularly relevant to the functionality of the application.

+3  A: 

It is creating a scope. Stack objects are destroyed when they go out of scope. It looks like it is doing some sort of typing, which would mean each block is something that they wanted to time. However, I don't see any scoped timer objects, so, yeah, makes no sense.

jeffamaphone
A: 

Hmm - I'm maybe off the chart here but I think local variable define inside such block will not be valid outside of the block

DroidIn.net
+16  A: 

To scope variables. E.g. the variable tmp_argv will only be valid between the braces.

jldupont
Although it doesn't appear to be the case here, the end of scope triggers destructors which wouldn't be triggered until later otherwise.
Keith Randall
@Keith: +1 I used to do this kind of thing all the time in my multi-threaded code, creating classes that would lock a mutex in their ctor and unlock it in the dtor
Jherico
+3  A: 

The variables that you declare inside the block are local to that block. This way you may be able to redefine tmp_argv in some other place of your code (below) without conflicting with this piece of code.

pgb
A: 

I think it's something like a scope limiter but I'm not sure. Yes, it might be a block, if you wanna call it that.

lamelas
A: 

Is that all of it? Maybe the programmer is using tmp_argv somewhere else in the code. I can't think of any other reason since the tmp_argv between the { and } is separate from any outside the braces.

Jacob
Nope, there is a bunch more. I just grabbed a random example.
Jergason
So does the programmer use `tmp_argv` in the scope outside the braces?
Jacob
+1  A: 

A block is a scope that determines the lifetime of variables, as well as their visibility to the compiler. So variables that get created within a block go away when control exits the block.

It can be very handy when those variables are instances of classes with constructors and destructors.

However, in your example there is not much advantage.

Paul Lalonde
+31  A: 

Legacy code needed { } in order to do declarations at all

In C89, you couldn't just do int i; anywhere; declarations were only valid at the beginning of blocks.

So:

a = 1;
int i; /* error */
i = 2;

...wasn't valid, but

a = 1
if (e) {
  int i;

...was fine, as was a plain block.

The resulting style continued even after declarations became valid (C99) block-item(s), partly by inertia, partly for backwards portability, and also because it makes sense to establish a scope for new declarations.

DigitalRoss
+1 This answer explains the **why**.
AraK
Strictly speaking, declaration never became *statements* in C. Even in C99 declarations are *not* statements. In C++ they are, but not in C.
AndreyT
@AraK - I disagree. Based on this answer, it might the plain block idiom is no longer necessary. In fact, many people like to continue to use it to limit the scope of the variables they create, even if it is no longer necessary to do so to declare new variables in the middle of a block. I consider the scoping answer more important than the legacy answer, though C89 compatibility is also a good reason to do this (since few compilers implement C99 well).
Chris Lutz
@AndreyT: Sigh, you are right, and it did bother me a bit at the time to say it that way. For the record :-) C89: compound-statement ::= { declaration-list(opt) statement-list(opt) }, whereas in C99: block-item ::= declaration | statement.
DigitalRoss
And if you go back far enough in your home retrocomputing lab or virtual machine, you get just the beginning of the function block, but not inner blocks at all.
DigitalRoss
A: 

I sometimes use blocks in these cases: - To localize variables - Or to easier to read ...

ltgbau
A: 

Another use case for this I've recently discovered is when you have open/close semantics and you want to clearly mark the 'inner' code:

f = fopen('file');
{
    // do stuff
}
fclose(f);

This works well to remind you to close/free objects and a makes the code somewhat cleaner.

Mike Weller