however, if a "goto" is used, perhaps some indication could be left in the
code about why it was used (fast-path optimization, pruning control
nesting, and so on) so future generations won't remove the critical ones.
usually when one writes code using uncommon practices, a comment is
warranted to explain the obfuscation, but we could get very clever and use
C macros :)
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Philipp Rumpf wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 09:58:53PM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > Then 'tidy' up something so it looks good to 'humans' and do the same
> > thing again. You will then learn why there are strange constructs and,
> > as you say, a 1000 gotos.
>
> I think a lot of the goto's could be removed as soon as there is a decent
> possibility to tell the compiler to optimize for a certain case. This was
> discussed on the egcs lists some time ago IIRC.
- Chuck Lever
-- corporate: <chuckl@netscape.com> personal: <chucklever@netscape.net> or <cel@monkey.org>
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/