Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> writes: > Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com> writes: > >> Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 05:07:38PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote: >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> I want to enter a discussion about changing the default of the style >>>> guide. >>>> >>>> There are several reasons for that: >>>> - they exist since C99 (i.e. all supported compilers support them) >>>> - they eliminate the posibility of an unitialized variable. >>> >>> Actually they don't do that reliably. In fact, when combined >>> with usage of 'goto', they introduce uninitialized variables, >>> despite the declaration having an initialization present, and >>> thus actively mislead reviewers into thinking their code is >>> safe. >> >> Wait a minute. >> If you use goto, you are already in special rules. >> >> And don't get confused, I fully agree when using goto for two reasons: >> - performance >> if you show that the code is x% faster when using goto, it is >> justified. It is even better if you send a bug report to gcc/clang, >> but I will not opose that use. > > I await a clear example in the context of QEMU - there is almost always > a better way to structure things. > >> - code clearity >> Some code (basically error paths) are clearer with goto that without >> them. > > Now we have g_auto* and lock guards we should encourage their use. goto > error_path is a relic of a simpler time ;-)
Only 8004 places to "modernize" (not counting generated code and documentation) before presence of goto ceases to be a concern. [...]
