If I define a function macro with no actual body, is it like an empty string with the compiler (i.e. It doesn't generate any extra instructions at compile time)?
Example:
#define SomeMacro(a) SomeMacro("hello"); // This line doesn't add any instructions, does it? 
You're absolutely correct, the empty macro doesn't generate any code.
I've seen two places where this is useful. The first is to eliminate warnings when a function parameter isn't used:
#define UNUSED(x) int foo(int UNUSED(value)) { return 42; } The second is when you use conditionals to determine if there should be code or not.
#ifdef LOGGING_ENABLED #define LOG(x) log_message(x) #else #define LOG(x) #endif 
int foo(int UNUSED(value)) if macro definition is balank ?
Your code is not totally correct, I suggest you to put empty braces in your macro
#define somemacro(a) {} the reason is simple, you code will be much more safe!
take this example:
if(Value) somemacro(a) else somemacro(b) If the macro is empty, your code will not compile! (Expected primary-expressione before "else"). Anyway certain style rules force you to write
if(Value) { somemacro(a) } else { somemacro(a) } so that will not be a problem.
Another option is to use ";" instead of "{}" but that option in the same case will give you compile time warnings, while empty braces will not give warnings nor errors! (semicolon is still better even if give warnings) ;)
take following case
if(value) somemacro(a); else somemacro(b); will expand to
if(value) {}; else {}; that can't compile!
That's why macros are evil
(since macros are simple text-replacement, the rule of dumbs should be to always try to manually replace the code and see what happens, there are also tools that will replace macros for you showing the expanded code.)
Still guessin if there is a macro that is totally safe? Yes it is called "NOP"
#define somemacro(a) ((void)0) that will work in any case (even source files of compilers use that as NOP, for example just look at "assert.h"
do { } while (0) idiom is for. Using plain {} for that purpose is not a good idea since it requires the user to remeber NOT to put a ; after that macro invocation.do {} while(0) is another valid alternative, even though some buggy compilers throw a warning for that.The preprocessor performs literal substitution with all macros.
Therefore, if you define an "empty" macro, then each place that identifier appears in your code will be replaced with an empty statement by the preprocessor before the compiler ever runs.
So yes. No code will be generated for the example given in your question.
That's correct. Your code expands to
; after preprocessing.
Note that you can ask your compiler to show you the code after preprocessing (in gcc, this is the -E option; your compiler may vary).
