On Monday 01 November 2010 01:42, Ken Irving wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 05:17:34PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Thursday 28 October 2010 16:10:35 Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> >
> > >- bunzip_data *bd;
> > > int i;
> > >+ unsigned len;
> > >
> > > outbuf = xmalloc(IOBUF_SIZE);
> > >- i = start_bunzip(&bd, src_fd, NULL, 0);
> > >- if (!i) {
> > >- for (;;) {
> > >- i = read_bunzip(bd, outbuf, IOBUF_SIZE);
> > >- if (i <= 0) break;
> > >- if (i != full_write(dst_fd, outbuf, i)) {
> > >- i = RETVAL_SHORT_WRITE;
> > >- break;
> > >+ len = 0;
> > >+ while (1) { /* "Process one BZ... stream" loop */
> >
> > I still viscerally cringe when I see while (1) instead of for(;;). I'm
> > aware
> > that modern optimizers take it out, but when there is a way to state
> > exactly
> > what you want the code to do and you choose to instead say something you
> > _don't_ want the code to actually look like, I don't understand why. Oh
> > well.
>
> I'm interested in this point, but can't find any arguments or discussion
> on the for(;;) vs while(1) issue. It is just a style preference, i.e.,
> a religious issue?
Yes.
> I have seen for(;;) promoted over while(1), but why?
No reason.
--
vda
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
