lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] explicitly mark recursion count


On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Jörn Engel wrote:
>
> Works for me for trivial recursions (just one function involved. With
> a little more pain, it should work for basically everything. Only
> exception are multiple recursions around the same function. So unless
> you like to keep those suckers, I'm fine with it.

Well, multiple recursion around the same function seems to be solvable two
different ways:
- "don't do that then". It really seems broken, but maybe there are
really really good reasons _why_ it's not broken and why it happens.
- make sure that the separate loops are broken in some _other_ place than
in the function they share.

A combination of the two may work well.

I say "may", because maybe I'm wrong, and the condition is common and hard
to avoid limiting in the shared function. I don't have your data (and I'm
lazy, so quite frankly I'd much rather you do the analysis anyway ;).

That said, I just don't see any sane alternatives to my "break in one
place" thing. I believe that anything more complex that tries to explain
the whole loop is just going to be a nightmare to maintain, and fragile as
hell except for totally static legacy code that nobody touches any more.

Linus
-
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: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.072 / U:0.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site