Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 14:10:18 +0200 From: Marius Strobl <marius@alchemy.franken.de> To: Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>, Ed Schouten <ed@freebsd.org>, Warner Losh <imp@freebsd.org>, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: C99: Suggestions for style(9) Message-ID: <20090501121018.GC2943@alchemy.franken.de> In-Reply-To: <49FADEF3.5010106@gmx.de> References: <49F4070C.2000108@gmx.de> <20090501112239.GA23199@alchemy.franken.de> <49FADEF3.5010106@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 01:37:23PM +0200, Christoph Mallon wrote:
> 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).
I agree that style(9) lacks explanations, however this doesn't
necessarily mean that non-obvious rules are "silly" and should
be removed.
> 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).
In general this is correct, a return() macro (in which case
the parentheses are not redundant) would be for local debugging
only and not ever hit the tree just like any other printf()-
debugging should not, so neither is relevant here. Besides,
a macro without side effects, which a return() macro typically
shouldn't have, is fine to be named all lowercase according
to style(9).
Marius
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090501121018.GC2943>