Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 08:32:38 +0200 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: nullfs & current UPDATE! Message-ID: <19971022083238.XB35355@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <19971022072818.27417@keltia.freenix.fr>; from Ollivier Robert on Oct 22, 1997 07:28:18 %2B0200 References: <199710220240.MAA23169@godzilla.zeta.org.au> <19971022072818.27417@keltia.freenix.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Ollivier Robert wrote: > According to Bruce Evans: > > style.9 says not to obfuscate code by initializes variables in > > declarations. > I tried to be consistent with the code around in null_vnops.c... Do you > think we should change both miscfs/nullfs and miscfs/umapfs to conform to > style(9) ? The code has been like this since 4.4BSD-lite... We've already changed style(9) to make it less strict than it used to be. Function calls are forbidden (since they might cause ill side-effects when someone tries to make the code thread-safe for SMP). One must be cautious with macros like VTONULL() since they could actually impose a function call (even if they don't do now, someone might get the idea to change a low-level interface later, and hide it inside such a macro). Of course, for C++ code, the restriction needs to be rethought. There's often a big difference between an initializer, and a declaration followed by an assignment, in C++ (the declaration might be not useful without the initializer, depending on your constructors). -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971022083238.XB35355>