On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 17:52, Aaron Lehmann wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 05:34:58PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > > You're wrong. You wouldn't have to jump over them any more than you > > have to jump over the "goto" statement. > > The goto is a conditional jump. You propose replacing it with a > conditional jump past the error handling code predicated on the > opposite condition. Where's the improvement? The goto is absolutely not a conditional jump. The if that precedes it is conditional. The goto is not. The if is already there. -Rob - 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/
Follow-Ups:
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Oliver Neukum
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Emiliano Gabrielli
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Linus Torvalds
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- 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*?Rik van Riel
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Aaron Lehmann
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Aaron Lehmann
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Aaron Lehmann
- 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]