In commit 4ecc3f3c09 I did a knee-jerk fix of a macro of the form
#define SECOND_PASS_ONLY { body; }
on the grounds that it was syntax-unsafe, so I wrapped it in the
standard do while(0):
#define SECOND_PASS_ONLY do { body; } while (0)
But in this case, that was a bogus transformation, because the body
executed 'continue' with the intention of affecting the containing
loop (outside the macro). Moreover, ten lines above the macro
definition was a comment specifically explaining why it _couldn't_ be
wrapped in do while (0) !
Since then I've come up with an alternative break-and-continue-proof
wrapper for macros that are supposed to expand to something that's
syntactically a C statement. So I've used that instead, and while I'm
at it, fixed the neighbouring EXPECTS_ARG as well.
Spotted by Coverity, and well spotted indeed! How embarrassing.
41053e9dcd