[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4819BAA6.9030105@panasas.com>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 15:42:14 +0300
From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
CC: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] misc: fix returning void-valued expression warnings
On Thu, May 01 2008 at 15:00 +0300, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 02:43:50PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>
>> I don't know who invented sparse, but I like this form of return.
>> 1 - It saves me the curly brackets and extra return line. But mainly
>> 2 - It is a programing statement that says: "Me here I'm an equivalent
>> to that other call". So if in the future that inner function starts
>> to return, say, an error value, with the first style the compiler will
>> error. But with the second style the new error return will be silently
>> ignored. So these are not equivalent replacements. The former is a much
>> stronger bond between the caller and the callie.
>
> 3. 6.8.6.4(1): A return statement with an expression shall not appear in
> a function whose return type is void.
>
Please forgive my ignorance, where is this quote from?
> Write in C, please.
I have used this style for ages. I thought it is C, and the compiler never
complained. You must agree that the two statements are not equivalent. Is it
a bad style? I saw it's merits, perhaps it's just me.
Boaz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists