From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 16 06:19:08 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3684816A41F; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:19:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dunstan@freebsd.czest.pl) Received: from freebsd.czest.pl (freebsd.czest.pl [80.48.250.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A84043D45; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:19:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dunstan@freebsd.czest.pl) Received: from freebsd.czest.pl (freebsd.czest.pl [80.48.250.4]) by freebsd.czest.pl (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBG6LVPx043684; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:21:32 GMT (envelope-from dunstan@freebsd.czest.pl) Received: (from dunstan@localhost) by freebsd.czest.pl (8.13.4/8.12.9/Submit) id jBG6LUWA043683; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:21:30 GMT (envelope-from dunstan) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:21:29 +0000 From: "Wojciech A. Koszek" To: =?iso-8859-2?Q?V=E1clav?= Haisman Message-ID: <20051216062129.GA43633@FreeBSD.czest.pl> References: <20051215223745.GA37768@FreeBSD.czest.pl> <43A1F97A.3060102@sh.cvut.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <43A1F97A.3060102@sh.cvut.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, phk@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CALL FOR TESTERS] New system call: abort2() 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, 16 Dec 2005 06:19:08 -0000 On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:17:14AM +0100, Václav Haisman wrote: > Wojciech A. Koszek wrote: > [...] > > Comments are welcome! > > As for the patch, the use of do {} while(0) instead of goto looks odd to me. This can be changed easily in final version of the patch if needed. > I would like to comment on FreeBSD style(9) a bit. Why does not mention > or even encourage C99 style // comments? They are nice when one wants to > comment out bigger chunks of code with /**/ comment. > > On the similar note, the ability to move declarations closer to the > point of use in code is IMO nice feature, too. The style(9) doesn't > mention this either. This creates unnecessary problems: large blocks can duplicate name of the variable so that they overlap, which has happened in the past. Additionally, some files use this kind of declaration, and it makes source hard to read. Also please note that current comments probably needs changing. I'm looking forward to hearing new comments in that field. Thanks, -- * Wojciech A. Koszek && dunstan@FreeBSD.czest.pl