Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 May 2015 07:23:30 +0200 (CEST) | From | Julia Lawall <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |