On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 09:41:51AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> gcc's flow analysis works with the same data as humans reading the
> code. If there is no information content in the function call, it makes
> more sense to either making it void.
The point of error() returning a constant -1 is to use this idiom:
if (something_failed)
return error("this will get printed, and we get a -1 return");
>From a code perspective it's pointless. You could "just" write:
if (something_failed) {
error(...);
return -1;
}
which is equivalent. But the point is that the former is shorter and a
little more readable, assuming you are familiar with the idiom.
> One can always explicitly write
>
> (config_error_nonbool("panic-when-assailed"), -1)
Yes, but again, the point is readability. Doing that at each callsite is
ugly and annoying.
> Shrug. This one has likely been discussed to death already. Sometimes
> it's more convenient to avoid getting a question asked in the first
> place rather than having a stock answer for it.
You are the first person to ask about it, so there is no stock answer.
However, everything I told you was in the commit messages and the list
archive already. We can also avoid questions being asked by using those
tools.
-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
