lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] net: ll_temac: Use one return statement instead of two


On Mon, 11 May 2015, Joe Perches wrote:

> On Mon, 2015-05-11 at 17:48 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > A coccinelle script might be rather more complicated
> > > > than the simpler grep above, but perhaps the script
> > > > could be a bit more complete as it could likely look
> > > > at more code indentation styles.
> > >
> > > Julia: Any comment?
> >
> > Here is what I had in mind:
> >
> > if (...) {
> > ... when != goto l;
> > return C;
> > }
> > return C;
> >
> > C is a constant, to avoid that its value depends on the code in the ...
>
> Sure but I think that would miss several instances like:
>
> switch (<foo>) {
> ...
> default:
> return <bar>;
> }
> return <bar>;

Switch Coccinelle is not very good at...

> or the similar
>
> if (foo) {
> if (qux)
> return <bar>;
> } else {
> return <baz>;
> }
>
> return <baz>;

It seems improbable, but I could look for that. Unfortunately, I don't
see a way to deal with arbitrarily nested ifs. Basically, the control
flow from one return doesn't go to the other. It goes from the return to
the outside of the function. I guess something could be done by renaming
all of the returns to function calls, but that tends to make a mess. It
could be done to see if such cases are worth considering though.

Another similar and popular construction is:

if (...) {
...
goto l;
}
l:

julia


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-12 07:41    [W:0.065 / U:3.908 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site