From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 6 12:56:11 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBBD81065679 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 12:56:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cperciva@freebsd.org) Received: from xps.daemonology.net (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B994B1533F1 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 12:56:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 71394 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2011 12:56:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO xps.daemonology.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Jan 2011 12:56:09 -0000 Message-ID: <4D25BBE9.4090905@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 04:56:09 -0800 From: Colin Percival User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101220 Thunderbird/3.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <201101060833.p068Xmrj008299@svn.freebsd.org> <4D258533.3@freebsd.org> <201101060747.48443.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201101060747.48443.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Edward Tomasz Napierala , svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer Subject: Re: svn commit: r217048 - head/share/man/man9 X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:56:11 -0000 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