On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 06:28:40PM +0000, Langer, Thomas wrote: > Hello Tom, > > I just read some days ago about the kernel Coding-Style: > > <quote> > Choose label names which say what the goto does or why the goto exists. An > example of a good name could be ``out_free_buffer:`` if the goto frees > ``buffer``. > Avoid using GW-BASIC names like ``err1:`` and ``err2:``, as you would have to > renumber them if you ever add or remove exit paths, and they make correctness > difficult to verify anyway. > </quote> > > Does is make sense to follow this for U-Boot also and fix the names of the > labels below? > > > > > free(fdt_overlay_stacked_copy); > > +err3: > > free(fdt_overlay_copy); > > +err2: > > free(fdt_base_copy); > > +err1: > > free(uts); > >
We have in U-Boot a number of cases of both, and the majority (from a quick read on 'git grep goto' is of the less descriptive case. I can certainly see how descriptive goto labels make more sense in the case of large functions and especially complicated short-cuts. Do you think 'malloc_base_copy_failed', 'malloc_overlay_copy_failed' and 'malloc_stacked_copy_failed' make the code more readable? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
