lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: question on common error-handling idiom
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

> >There are some places that do
> >
> >err = -SOMEERROR;
> >if (some_error)
> > goto out;
> >if (some_other_error)
> > goto out;
> >if (another_error)
> > goto out;
> >
> >Let's see what other people think :)
>
> err = -ESOME;
> if(some_error || some_other_error || another_error) {
> goto out;
> }
>
> Best.
>
Agreed, but that would potentially make something like the following (from
fs/binfmt_elf.c::load_elf_binary) quite unreadable :

if (loc->elf_ex.e_type != ET_EXEC && loc->elf_ex.e_type != ET_DYN)
goto out;
if (!elf_check_arch(&loc->elf_ex))
goto out;
if (!bprm->file->f_op||!bprm->file->f_op->mmap)
goto out;


But that's not even the most interresting case, the interresting one is
the one that does

err = -ERR;
if (foo)
goto out;

err = -ERROR;
if (bar)
goto out;

where there's the potential to save an instruction by moving the err= into
the error path.
But as Oliver Neukum pointed out gcc may not be smart enough for that to
actually generate the best code.

Has anyone taken a look at what recent gcc's actually do with different
variations of the constructs mentioned in this thread?


--
Jesper Juhl


-
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 14:07    [W:0.049 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site