Over using parentheses

[sweet swan]

I have a tendency to over use parentheses to make sure my code does what I want it to do. I could always just test this by running the code to see if it does what I want it to do but I just get more assurance this way since sometimes I’m not sure what takes precedence over the other. Is it good or bad practice to be doing this? Or neither?

Ie. #define SetBit(addr, bit) ((*((volatile uint32_t*)(addr))) |= (1<<(bit)))

[green anvil]

When your question is answered use !solved to mark the question as resolved.

Remember to ask specific questions, provide necessary details, and reduce your question to its simplest form. For tips on how to ask a good question use !howto ask.

[grim lion]

using two sets of parenthes around the whole macro is definitely overusing

or maybe that's not what the code is doing, it becomes a bit unclear with that many

it's alright but using parentheses for literally every operator is a bit much

[sweet swan]

Makes sense

I guess I don’t really need the last set of parentheses

Just curious, I only noticed one set of parentheses around the whole macro

Unless I’m misunderstanding it

[grim lion]

probably miscounted then

[sweet swan]

Don’t blame you, I guess it would make it hard to read aswell 😂😂

I guess just knowing precedence would help me go a long way then

[grim lion]

in particular *((volatile uint32_t*)(addr)) it should be pretty clear the order that *(volatile uint32_t*)(addr) would apply in

since they're both unary prefix operators

[sweet swan]

True since casting has higher precedence than de referencing

Right?

[grim lion]

there is no precedence between unary operators that are both prefix or both suffix

it's just the order you write them in

e.g. -*x dereference then negate, *-x negate then dereference

[sweet swan]

Ohhh okay

Makes sense now

Thanks!

[green anvil]

@sweet swan Has your question been resolved? If so, type !solved :)

[sweet swan]

!solved