Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 23 Feb 2002 08:22:11 -0800 | From | Larry McVoy <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] [PATCH] C exceptions in kernel |
| |
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 06:05:48PM +0200, Dan Aloni wrote: > But, it CAN be used in *local* driver call branches. Writing a new > driver? have a lot of local nested calls? Hate goto's? You can use > exceptions.
Is this really anything other than syntactic sugar? Maybe it's different in drivers, but I find myself doing the following in user space all the time
#define unless(x) if (!(x)) /* perl/BCPL corrupted me */
function(...) { char *foo = 0, *bar = 0; int locked = 0; int rc = -1;
if (bad args or something) { out: if (foo) free(foo); if (bar) free(bar); if (locked) unlock(); return (rc); }
unless (locked = get_the_lock()) goto out; unless (foo = allocate_foo()) goto out; unless (bar = allocate_bar()) goto out;
more code....
rc = 0; goto out; }
It seems ugly at first but it has some nice attributes:
a) all the cleanup is in one place, for both the error path and the non-error path. I could put it at the bottom, I like it at the top because that's where I tend to have the list of things needed to be cleaned.
b) all the error cases are branches, the normal path is straightline.
c) it's as dense as I can make it.
So how would you do the same thing with exceptions? -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - 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/
| |