[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 03:18:38PM -0500, 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.
1+ 505 838 9109

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.178 / U:2.980 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site