[PATCH] block-sha1: drop trailing semicolon from macro definition

[PATCH] block-sha1: drop trailing semicolon from macro definition

[René Scharfe.]

23119ffb4e (block-sha1: put expanded macro parameters in parentheses,
2012-07-22) added a trailing semicolon to the definition of SHA_MIX
without explanation.  It doesn't matter with the current code, but make
sure to avoid potential surprises by removing it again.

This allows the macro to be used almost like a function: Users can
combine it with operators of their choice, but still must not pass an
expression with side-effects as a parameter, as it would be evaluated
multiple times.

Signed-off-by: René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
---
 block-sha1/sha1.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/block-sha1/sha1.c b/block-sha1/sha1.c
index 8681031402..1bb6e7c069 100644
--- a/block-sha1/sha1.c
+++ b/block-sha1/sha1.c
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@
  * the input data, the next mix it from the 512-bit array.
  */
 #define SHA_SRC(t) get_be32((unsigned char *) block + (t)*4)
-#define SHA_MIX(t) SHA_ROL(W((t)+13) ^ W((t)+8) ^ W((t)+2) ^ W(t), 1);
+#define SHA_MIX(t) SHA_ROL(W((t)+13) ^ W((t)+8) ^ W((t)+2) ^ W(t), 1)

 #define SHA_ROUND(t, input, fn, constant, A, B, C, D, E) do { \
 	unsigned int TEMP = input(t); setW(t, TEMP); \
--
2.30.2

Re: [PATCH] block-sha1: drop trailing semicolon from macro definition

[Jonathan Nieder]

René Scharfe. wrote:

> 23119ffb4e (block-sha1: put expanded macro parameters in parentheses,
> 2012-07-22) added a trailing semicolon to the definition of SHA_MIX
> without explanation.  It doesn't matter with the current code, but make
> sure to avoid potential surprises by removing it again.
>
> This allows the macro to be used almost like a function: Users can
> combine it with operators of their choice, but still must not pass an
> expression with side-effects as a parameter, as it would be evaluated
> multiple times.
>
> Signed-off-by: René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
> ---
>  block-sha1/sha1.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Yes, it was just a typo.