Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Fri, 15 Dec 2000 21:22:19 +0100 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: 2.2.18 signal.h |
| |
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 06:09:16PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > And yes I can see that the whole point of the change is that > > they want to also forbids this: > > > > x() > > { > > goto out; > > out: > > } > > > > and I dislike not being allowed to do the above as well infact ;). > > What's wrong with the - more readable - `break;' ?
You meant "return" of course as you can't put a break there (there's no loop).
`return' doesn't define the fast path (but ok it's a minor issue and I think latest gcc can use some stuff to define fast paths).
In general all I'm saying is that they don't want a label before the end of a compound statement and that's a not interesting requirement IMHO that will just force people to use one additional "suprious" `;' after the last label. It doesn't make the code more readable and it doesn't give any advantage other than maybe having simplified some formal language definition.
Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |