On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 02:10:32PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Can we agree that the use of macros that conditionally return as a
> side effect are, in general, a bad idea and their use should not be
> encouraged?
why is it a bad idea? one reason I can think is running in gdb. I think it is
easy to work around that. So I don't agree with you yet.
When there is a need for several calls to such a macro replacing it with
inlined version get confusing.
stf_status res = accept_ike_sa_rekey_req(md, pst,st);
if (res != STF_OK) {
return res;
}
vs
RETURN_STF_FAILURE_STATUS(accept_ike_sa_rekey_req(md, pst,st));
Imagine this 5 - 10 times.
I do find having RETURN_STF_FAILURE and RETURN_STF_FAILURE_STATUS is a bit
confusing.
However, I hope to get rid of one, once we have a general way of replying with
notification with payloads.
My idea is RETURN_STF_FAILURE which return stf_status and not
v2_v2_notification_t_t. One day we will get there:)
-antony
_______________________________________________
Swan-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
