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
!
31--2004 12:46 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luchezar Georgiev) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
+++ inthndlr.c31 Dec 2004 12:46:21 - 1.87.2.13
@@ -752,7 +752,6 @@
return_user();
- break;
@@ -1025,7 +1027,6 @@
return_user();
- break;
I think, for
