On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Carsten Haitzler <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:58:30 -0300 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri > <[email protected]> said: > >> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Tom Hacohen <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On 24/07/13 03:09, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: >> >> On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:22:02 +0200 Jérémy Zurcher <[email protected]> said: >> >> >> >>> just to clarify a few points: >> >>> >> >>> - I think the less macro we have in an eo class declaration the best, >> >>> actually we have nothing but that extra first parameter called eo2_o, >> >>> wich is either an obj_ptr (devs/tasn/eo2) or a call_ctx (devs/jeyzu/eo2) >> >>> >> >>> this should go away if we use a stack per thread in eo private code, >> >>> so we end up with a clean >> >>> EAPI float times(float f, float t); >> >>> >> >>> - since day 1 break is supported in eo2_do: >> >>> #define eo2_do(obj_id, ...) >> >>> do >> >>> { >> >>> obj_ptr_or_ctx = eo2_do_start(obj_id); >> >>> if(!obj_ptr_or_ctx) break; >> >>> do { __VA_ARGS__ ; } while (0); >> >>> eo2_do_end(obj_ptr_or_ctx); >> >>> } while (0) >> >> >> >> i'm worried about people doing return there. seriously - objid came in >> >> becau se of experience that people using efl are in general inexperienced >> >> programmers who don't take the time to do things right. they do things >> >> quickly and take shortcuts, and they ignore warnings. they'd rather patch >> >> out abort()s in efl code forcing them to fix their bugs, than fix their >> >> bugs. i am fearful that they will stuff in returns quite happily and think >> >> it mostly works most of the time... and then find subtle issues and waste >> >> our time finding them. >> >> >> >> how do we protect/stop returns (or goto's for that matter) within the >> >> while >> >> block. i looked for some pragmas - can't find any to do this. this would >> >> be a really useful compiler feature though (to maybe disable some >> >> constructs for a sequence of code). >> >> >> > >> > Already showed you a solution, the one with the bla function. It works >> > and it's mostly clean. >> >> >> how so? The __VA_ARGS__ may contain a return and it will never reach >> eo2_do_end() > > precisely. current eo just can't do it (compiler will barf). if we could make > the compiler barf... that'd be great! this doesn't work, but if it could: > > #define eo2_do(obj_id, ...) \ > do { \ > obj_ptr_or_ctx = eo2_do_start(obj_id); \ > if(!obj_ptr_or_ctx) break; \ > do { \ > #define return DONT_USE_RETURN_HERE \ > #define goto DONT_USE_GOTO_HERE \ > __VA_ARGS__ ; \ > #undef return \ > #undef goto \ > } while (0); \ > eo2_do_end(obj_ptr_or_ctx); \ > } while (0) > > then this would be awesome. even if it only worked for gcc (and maybe clang) > as > extensions, i'd be happy enough. some way to disallow it.
Why not use the idea from Tom of just adding a stupid if (0) eo_dummy(__VA_ARGS__); That is going to enforce only function call get it, no ? -- Cedric BAIL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds. Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
