Vfrdtyky

This can be useful if there are #if statements, ala

   if (0)

   {

       // Empty block

   }

#if TEST1_ENABLED

   else if (test1())

   {

      action1();

   }

#endif

#if TEST2_ENABLED

   else if (test2())

   {

      action2();

   }

#endif

etc.

In this case, any (and all) of the tests can be #if'ed out, and the code will compile correctly. Almost all compilers will remove the if (0) {} part.
A simple autogenerator could generate code like this, as it is slightly easier to code - it doesn't have to consider the first enabled block separately.

I've seen a similar pattern used in generated code. For example, in SQL, I've seen libraries emit the following where clause.

where 1 = 1

This presumably makes it easier to just add on other criteria, because all additional criteria can be prepended with and instead of an additional check to see if it is the first criteria or not.

As written, the if (0) {} clause compiles out to nothing.

I suspect the function of the clause at the top of this ladder is to provide an easy place to temporarily disable all the other functionality at once (for debugging or comparison purposes) by changing the 0 to a 1 or true.

One possibility not yet mentioned: the if (0) { line could be providing a convenient spot for a breakpoint.

Debugging is often done on non-optimised code so the always-false test will be present and able to have breakpoint set on it. When compiled for production, the line of code would be optimised out. The seemingly useless line gives functionality for development and testing builds without impacting release builds.

There are other good suggestions above as well; the only way to really know what the purpose is, is to track down the author and ask. Your source code control system might help with that. (Look for blame-type functionality.)

I am not sure of any optimizations, but my two cents:

This happened because of some code modification, where one primary condition was removed, (the function call in initial if block, let's say), but the developers/ maintainers

• were lazy to restructure the if-else block


• did not want to go down on the branch coverage count
  

so instead of removing the associated if block, they simply changed the condition to if(0) and moved on.

It's code rot.

At some point that "if" did something useful, the situation changed, maybe the variable being evaluated was removed.

The person who was fixing/changing the system did as little as possible to affect the logic of the system so he just made sure the code would recompile. So he leaves an "if(0)" because that's quick and easy and he's not totally sure that's what he wants to do. He gets the system working and he doesn't go back to fix it completely.

Then the next developer comes along and thinks that was done deliberately and only comments out that part of the code (since it's not being evaluated anyway), then the next time the code is touched those comments are removed.

I've seen non reachable code blocks in pre-expanded JavaScript that have been generated using a templating language.

For instance, the code you are reading could have been pasted from a server that pre-evaluated the first condition that at that time relied on a variable only available on server side.

if ( ${requestIsNotHttps} ){ ... }else if( ...

which once pre-compiled hences :

if ( 0 ){ ... }else if ( ...

hope this helps you relativise the potential low keyboard activity of the pro-recycling coders era for which i manifest enthusiasm !

That construct may also be used in C to implement generic programming with type safety, relying on the fact that the unreachable code is still checked by the compiler:

// this is a generic unsafe function, that will call fun(arg) at a later time

void defer(void *fun, void *arg);



// this is a macro that makes it safer, by checking the argument

// matches the function signature

#define DEFER(f, arg) 

   if(0) f(arg);               // never actually called, but compile-time checked

   else defer(f, (void *)arg);  // do the unsafe call after safety check



void myfunction(int *p);



DEFER(myfunction, 42);     // compile error

int *b;

DEFER(myfunction, b);      // compiles OK

I think it's just bad code. Writing a quick example in Compiler Explorer, we see that in both gcc and clang no code is generated for the if (0) block, even with optimizations completely disabled:

https://godbolt.org/z/PETIks

Playing around with removing the if (0) causes no changes to the generated code, so I conclude that this is not an optimization.

It's possible that there used to be something in the top if block which was later removed. In short, it looks like removing it would cause the exact same code to be generated, so feel free to do that.

As it's been said, the zero is evaluated to false, and the branch will likely be optimized out by the compiler.

I've also seen this before in code where a new feature was added and a kill-switch was needed (if something goes wrong with the feature you can just turn it off), and some time later when the kill-switch was removed the programmer didn't also remove the branch, e.g.

if (feature_a_active()) {

    use_feature_a();

} else if (some_fn()) {

   ...

became

if (0) {

   // empty

} else if (some_fn()) {

   ...

It helps to debug this block just putting if block 1. This disable all if else block functionality. And also we can expand the if else block.

    Actually according to my opinion, if we put any variable for checking inside

    e.g:-

public static void main(string args)

{

        var status;

        var empList=_unitofWork.EmpRepository.Get(con=>con.isRetired==true);

        //some code logic 

        if(empList.count>0)

        {

          status=true;

        }

        if(status)

        {

         //do something

        }

        else

        {

        //do something else

        }

}

     if then its dynamically get the value in run time and invoke the logic inside it, else its simply extra line of code i guess.



    Anybody have any depth knowledge why this thing is used....or agree with me.

    kindly respond. 

@PSkocik's answer is fine, but I add my two cents. Unsure if I should do this as a comment, or as an answer; choosing the latter, because IMHO worth others seeing, whereas comments are frequently invisible.

Not only do I occasionally use

if(0) {

   //deliberately left empty

} else if( cond1 ) {

   //deliberately left empty

} else if( cond2 ) {

   //deliberately left empty

...

} else {

   // no conditions matched

}

But I also occasionally do

if( 1 

    && cond1 

    && cond2

    ...

    && condN

) {

or

if( 0 

    || cond1 

    || cond2

    ...

    || condN

) {

for complicated conditions. For the same reasons - easier to edit, #ifdef, etc.

For that matter, in Perl I will do

@array = (  

    elem1,

    elem2,

    ...

    elem1,

) {

• note the comma at the end of the list. I forget if commas are separators or delimiters in C and C++ lists. IMHO this is one thing we have learned: [Are trailing commas in Perl a bad practice? commas] are a good thing. Like any new notation, it takes a while to get used to.

I compare the if(0) code to lisp

(cond   (test1    action1)

   (test2    action2)

   ...

   (testn   actionn))

which, you guessed it, I may indent as

(cond   

   (test1    action1)

   (test2    action2)

   ...

   (testn   actionn)

)

I have sometimes tried to imagine what a more human readable syntax for this might look like.

Perhaps

IF

:: cond1 THEN code1

:: cond2 THEN code2

...

:: condN THEN codeN

FI

inspired by Dikstra's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guarded_Command_Language#Selection:_if][Guarded Command Language].

But this syntax implies that the conditions are evaluated in parallel, whereas if...else-if implies sequential and prioritized evaluation of conditions.

I started doing this sort of thing when writing programs that generated other programs, where it is especially convenient.

While we are at it, when writing RTL using Intel's old iHDL, I have coded stuff like

   IF 0 THEN /*nothing*/

   **FORC i FROM 1 TO 10 DOC** 

   ELSE IF signal%i% THEN    

      // stuff to do if signal%i% is active

   **ENDC** 

   ELSE   

      // nothing matched 

   ENDIF

where the FORC..DOC..ENDC is a macro preprocessor loop construct, that expands to

   IF 0 THEN /*nothing*/

   ELSE IF signal1 THEN    

      // stuff to do if signal1 is active

   ELSE IF signal2 THEN    

      // stuff to do if signal2 is active

   ...

   ELSE IF signal100 THEN    

      // stuff to do if signal100 is active

   ELSE   

      // nothing matched 

   ENDIF

This was single assignment, non-imperative, code, so setting a state variable was not allowed, if you needed to do things like find first set bit.

   IF 0 THEN /*nothing*/

   ELSE IF signal1 THEN    

      found := 1

   ELSE IF signal2 THEN    

      found := 2

   ...

   ELSE IF signal100 THEN    

      found := 100

   ELSE   

      // nothing matched 

   ENDIF

Come to think of it, this may have been the first place that I encountered such constructs.

BTW, the objections that some had to the if(0) style - that the else-if-conditions are sequentially dependent and cannot be arbitrarily reordered - do not apply to AND and OR and XOR logic in RTL - but do apply to short-circuit && and ||.

I have seen this a few times, I think the most likely reason is it was evaluating something in an older/different version/branch of the code, or possibly for debugging, and changing it to if(0) is a somewhat lazy way of removing whatever was there.