Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 04:56:09 -0800 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Edward Tomasz Napierala <trasz@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r217048 - head/share/man/man9 Message-ID: <4D25BBE9.4090905@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201101060747.48443.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201101060833.p068Xmrj008299@svn.freebsd.org> <4D258533.3@freebsd.org> <201101060747.48443.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/06/11 04:47, John Baldwin wrote: > On Thursday, January 06, 2011 4:02:43 am Julian Elischer wrote: >> On 1/6/11 12:33 AM, Edward Tomasz Napierala wrote: >>> -Code that cannot be reached should have a >>> -.Li NOTREACHED >>> -comment. > > Clutter. It should be very obvious that exit(), err*(), pthread_exit(), > kthread_exit(), kproc_exit() and even usage() all terminate without returning > (the last not required, just a very common convention). [...] However, it might not be so obvious following long 'for (;;)' loops which return rather than breaking. I'd prefer to see the remark stay in style(9) with an added "in cases where this isn't immediately obvious from the surrounding code" clause. -- Colin Percival Security Officer, FreeBSD | freebsd.org | The power to serve Founder / author, Tarsnap | tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly paranoid
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D25BBE9.4090905>