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) {
          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

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

Reply via email to