Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 15:51:39 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl>, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r303586 - head/bin/sh Message-ID: <20160801154048.K884@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfqzQO5f_MSCj9pZ63qZO5cSMy6ym9%2BkhVkZ8pVuLXUyEg@mail.gmail.com> References: <201607311311.u6VDBYr8066638@repo.freebsd.org> <20160731134316.GB85936@FreeBSD.org> <20160731201614.GA58505@stack.nl> <CANCZdfqzQO5f_MSCj9pZ63qZO5cSMy6ym9%2BkhVkZ8pVuLXUyEg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016, Warner Losh wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 01:43:16PM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: >>> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 01:11:34PM +0000, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: >>>> New Revision: 303586 >>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/303586 >> >>>> Log: >>>> sh: Fix a clang warning. >> >>>> Submitted by: bdrewery >> >>>> Modified: >>>> head/bin/sh/expand.c >> >>>> Modified: head/bin/sh/expand.c >>>> ============================================================================== >>>> --- head/bin/sh/expand.c Sun Jul 31 12:59:10 2016 (r303585) >>>> +++ head/bin/sh/expand.c Sun Jul 31 13:11:34 2016 (r303586) >>>> @@ -473,7 +473,8 @@ expbackq(union node *cmd, int quoted, in >>>> if (--in.nleft < 0) { >>>> if (in.fd < 0) >>>> break; >>>> - while ((i = read(in.fd, buf, sizeof buf)) < 0 && errno == EINTR); >>>> + while ((i = read(in.fd, buf, sizeof buf)) < 0 && errno == EINTR) >>>> + ; >> >>> `continue;' would be even better; some tools might barf at stray semicolon. >> >> Both continue; and ; (the latter with and without comment) occur in the >> source tree many times. I don't really like a continue that does nothing >> because it is at the end of a loop, so I prefer to make this whitespace >> change only (there are two more instances in bin/sh). I think a sole >> semicolon on a line is conspicuous enough that nothing additional is >> required. > > For humans, yes. For picky tools that warn about strange constructs, no. > Clang may be happy, but there's many other tools that expect you to declare > an 'empty' while loop with continue. This tradition has dated back to > at least the > late 80's... Buggy tools. I thought that programmers used the stand-alone semicolon since that is shorter and clearer. The stand-alone semicolon is bad if it is misformatted. 'while(foo());' is shorter and unclearer. A C parser must ignore whitespace, so you need a tool like indent that sort of understands whitespace to disallow while(foo()); but accept 'while (foo())\n\t;'. It is not far from full indent(1) and insisting on the correct number of \t's before the semicolon. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160801154048.K884>