lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
    On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 03:18:38PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
    > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:59:57 EST, Rob Wilkens said:
    >
    > > In general, if you can structure your code properly, you should never
    > > need a goto, and if you don't need a goto you shouldn't use it. It's
    > > just "common sense" as I've always been taught. Unless you're
    > > intentionally trying to write code that's harder for others to read.
    >
    > Now, it's provable you never *NEED* a goto. On the other hand, *judicious*
    > use of goto can prevent code that is so cluttered with stuff of the form:
    >
    > if(...) {
    > ...
    > die_flag = 1;
    > if (!die _flag) {...
    >
    > Pretty soon, you have die_1_flag, die_2_flag, die_3_flag and so on,
    > rather than 3 or 4 "goto bail_now;".
    >
    > The real problem is that C doesn't have a good multi-level "break" construct.

    longjump. Used with good effect in the plan9 code.

    Probably takes more coordination than is possible in Linux and has marginal
    benefit, but it looks nice.






    --
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Victor Yodaiken
    Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.
    www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com
    1+ 505 838 9109

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:4.229 / U:0.380 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site