Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:55:46 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Warner Losh <imp@freebsd.org>, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/cfe cfe_console.c Message-ID: <200809291055.46386.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <48DEFFDE.5020300@freebsd.org> References: <200809280333.m8S3XABp063809@repoman.freebsd.org> <48DEFFDE.5020300@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 27 September 2008 11:54:06 pm Colin Percival wrote: > Warner Losh wrote: > > Change while (cond)\n\t\t; to while (cond)\n\t\tcontinue; since the > > former more explicitly tells the compiler that you want an empty loop. > > There are some lint programs that use this hint to avoid generating > > warnings. > > In style(9) the example > for (p = buf; *p != '\0'; ++p) > ; /* nothing */ > is given, but I really like the explicit continue; enough so that I'm > wondering if the example in style(9) should be changed to > for (p = buf; *p != '\0'; ++p) > continue; > to encourage people to write that way (I hope I'm not the only person > who simply never thought of adding the explicit continue?). > > Realizing that questions of style tend to provoke huge debates: Please > send me your opinions off-list, and I'll only make this change if the > emails I get are at least 75% in favour. Assuming lint doesn't have special magic for '/* nothing */' (it does for /* NOTREACHED */ and /* FALLTHROUGH */ IIRC), then I think we should update style(9) for the 'continue;' style that existing tools parse better. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200809291055.46386.jhb>