From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 1 11:37:26 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41A851065679 for ; Fri, 1 May 2009 11:37:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from christoph.mallon@gmx.de) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5E04F8FC17 for ; Fri, 1 May 2009 11:37:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from christoph.mallon@gmx.de) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 01 May 2009 11:37:24 -0000 Received: from p54A3F073.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO tron.homeunix.org) [84.163.240.115] by mail.gmx.net (mp058) with SMTP; 01 May 2009 13:37:24 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1673122 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19CInFHY/pCDnlJj+Oita6mJZpYPx/ZUIv2gTt5gS Mb7ipfRAfVeFCs Message-ID: <49FADEF3.5010106@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 13:37:23 +0200 From: Christoph Mallon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090412) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marius Strobl References: <49F4070C.2000108@gmx.de> <20090501112239.GA23199@alchemy.franken.de> In-Reply-To: <20090501112239.GA23199@alchemy.franken.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.59 Cc: FreeBSD Hackers , Roman Divacky , Ed Schouten , Warner Losh , Maxim Sobolev Subject: Re: C99: Suggestions for style(9) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 11:37:26 -0000 Marius Strobl schrieb: > On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 09:02:36AM +0200, Christoph Mallon wrote: >> return with parentheses: >> Removed, because it does not improve maintainability in any way. There >> is no source for confusion here, so the rule even contradicts the rule, >> which states not to use redundant parentheses. Maybe, decades ago it was >> just a workaround for a broken compiler, which does not exist anymore. > > FYI, the idea behind this rule is said to be to able to use > a macro return(), f.e. for debugging you then can do: > #define return(x) do { \ > printf("returning from %s with %d\n", __func__, (x)); \ > return (x); \ > } while (0) > > Given the this is a nifty feature and parentheses around the > return value don't hurt maintainability in any way IMO this > rule should stay. This is mentioned nowhere in style(9) (in general it is lacking reasons why something is some way or the other). Also I consider this as gross abuse: Macro names shall be in all uppercase, so it is clear that there is a macro at work. Therefore "return" is not a candidate. So this would violate yet another rule in style(9) (the original return already violates the no-redundant parentheses rule). Also I would not mention __func__: there were objections against using it in the past (though I, logically, prefer its use). Christoph