That's really bad practice. The reason that it's there is so if, by
reason of a bug or hardware failure of any sort, return_user() does
really return, you will have bug that will be a nightmare to find. For
the savings of less than 10 bytes, it's not worth the risk.
Pat
Arkady V.Belousov
Hi!
5--2005 08:30 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pat Villani) wrote to
freedos-kernel@lists.sourceforge.net:
+++ inthndlr.c31 Dec 2004 12:46:21 - 1.87.2.13
return_user();
- break;
I think, for readability purposes (to make understanding by new
developers easier) `break'
Hi Arkady,
The - in the diff says that the break is removed entirely. Did you
actually mean this, given your reply?
I think you do save 2 or 3 bytes per break, depending on the compiler.
However, I can relate to you an amusing experience. At one time, I did
some consulting for Bell Labs. A
Hi!
5--2005 09:19 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pat Villani) wrote to
freedos-kernel@lists.sourceforge.net:
PV The - in the diff says that the break is removed entirely. Did you
PV actually mean this, given your reply?
Yes. Break is removed, but later some new developer may wonder, why
there are no
Eric Auer schreef:
PS: Which kernels contain the DOSLFN compatibility patch (improved
xBPB/DPB initialization and set extended error code implemented),
only the development kernels at www.fdos.org/kernel, I think. Jeremy has
been active lately. Only thing missing by default is that IF a
Hello Eric,
Hi guys, interesting anecdote from Pat, but:
yes, it was interesting to see Pat watching this list at all.
and while I agree completely with what he wrote, IMO he slightly
missed the point (and you -eric- miss it completely)
The whole point is that if you remove the break;
