On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 17:22, Rob Wilkens wrote: > I say "please don't use goto" and instead have a "cleanup_lock" function > and add that before all the return statements.. It should not be a > burden. Yes, it's asking the developer to work a little harder, but the > end result is better code. No, it is gross and it bloats the kernel. It inlines a bunch of junk for N error paths, as opposed to having the exit code once at the end. Cache footprint is key and you just killed it. Nor is it easier to read. As a final argument, it does not let us cleanly do the usual stack-esque wind and unwind, i.e. do A if (error) goto out_a; do B if (error) goto out_b; do C if (error) goto out_c; goto out; out_c: undo C out_b: undo B: out_a: undo A out: return ret; Now stop this. Robert Love - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
References:
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Linus Torvalds
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Matti Aarnio
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Oliver Neukum
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- Prev by Date: Re: Moderated forum for linux-kernel
- Next by Date: Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
- Previous by thread: Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
- Next by thread: Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]