On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Lucas De Marchi
<lucas.demar...@profusion.mobi> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Jérémy Zurcher <jer...@asynk.ch> wrote:
>> On Saturday 27 July 2013 11:10, Carsten Haitzler wrote :
>>> On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:57:28 -0300 Lucas De Marchi
>>> <lucas.demar...@profusion.mobi> said:
>>>
>>> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > > On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:58:30 -0300 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
>>> > > <barbi...@profusion.mobi> said:
>>> > >
>>> > >> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Tom Hacohen <tom.haco...@samsung.com>
>>> > >> wrote:
>>> > >> > On 24/07/13 03:09, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
>>> > >> >> On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:22:02 +0200 Jérémy Zurcher <jer...@asynk.ch>
>>> > >> >> said:
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >>> just to clarify a few points:
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>> - I think the less macro we have in an eo class declaration the
>>> > >> >>> best,
>>> > >> >>> actually we have nothing but that extra first parameter called
>>> > >> >>> eo2_o, wich is either an obj_ptr (devs/tasn/eo2) or a call_ctx
>>> > >> >>> (devs/jeyzu/eo2)
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>> this should go away if we use a stack per thread in eo private
>>> > >> >>> code,
>>> > >> >>> so we end up with a clean
>>> > >> >>> EAPI float times(float f, float t);
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>> - since day 1 break is supported in eo2_do:
>>> > >> >>> #define eo2_do(obj_id, ...)
>>> > >> >>> do
>>> > >> >>> {
>>> > >> >>> obj_ptr_or_ctx = eo2_do_start(obj_id);
>>> > >> >>> if(!obj_ptr_or_ctx) break;
>>> > >> >>> do { __VA_ARGS__ ; } while (0);
>>> > >> >>> eo2_do_end(obj_ptr_or_ctx);
>>> > >> >>> } while (0)
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> i'm worried about people doing return there. seriously - objid came
>>> > >> >> in
>>> > >> >> becau se of experience that people using efl are in general
>>> > >> >> inexperienced programmers who don't take the time to do things
>>> > >> >> right.
>>> > >> >> they do things quickly and take shortcuts, and they ignore warnings.
>>> > >> >> they'd rather patch out abort()s in efl code forcing them to fix
>>> > >> >> their
>>> > >> >> bugs, than fix their bugs. i am fearful that they will stuff in
>>> > >> >> returns
>>> > >> >> quite happily and think it mostly works most of the time... and then
>>> > >> >> find subtle issues and waste our time finding them.
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> how do we protect/stop returns (or goto's for that matter) within
>>> > >> >> the
>>> > >> >> while block. i looked for some pragmas - can't find any to do this.
>>> > >> >> this would be a really useful compiler feature though (to maybe
>>> > >> >> disable
>>> > >> >> some constructs for a sequence of code).
>>> >
>>> > What you seem to be looking for is the cleanup attribute.
>>> >
>>> > #define eo2_do(obj_id, ...)
>>> > do
>>> > {
>>> > obj_ptr_or_ctx = eo2_do_start(obj_id);
>>> > if(!obj_ptr_or_ctx) break;
>>> > do
>>> > {
>>> > obj_ptr_or_ctx_type __attribute__((cleanup(eo2_do_end))
>>> > dummy = obj_ptr_or_ctx;
>>> > __VA_ARGS__ ;
>>> > } while (0);
>>> > } while (0);
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > But then we need to take a look if the cleanup function will run when
>>> > the actual function returns, or when the second "do" runs out of
>>> > scope. This attribute is more commonly used to call free on the
>>> > variable, so it doesn't matter much.... but for us this would make a
>>> > difference if it involves locking.
>>> >
>>> > Then you just allow break and return, and the right thing will happen,
>>> > even in those cases.
>>>
>>> voila! that would do it (if it does work on return as well as break and any
>>> goto that jumps out of the while scope). if course it'd be dependant on
>>> compiler supporting it - if it doesnt, then we cleanup by hand as normal on
>>> a
>>> break and return/goto just create bugs. i'd be ok with that. need to add
>>> -fexceptions maybe too from a quick read. needs a little experimenting and
>>> some
>>> method of detection. looks like its single parameter only and i guess it is
>>> done variable by variable which is good enough for us. :) i wonder how new
>>> it
>>> is. hmm looks like gcc 3.3 - that means it's rather old by now. GOOD. i hope
>>> clang supports it too and.... it seems not. :( oh well. let's hope most devs
>>> still use gcc. :)
>>>
>>
>> nice one,
>> implemented and tested with gcc 4.8.1 and clang 3.3
>>
>> http://git.enlightenment.org/core/efl.git/commit/?h=devs/tasn/eo2&id=275280c3e0fb74e01ffd682acfb69f6a2700dc40
>
> Humn... taking what you committed:
>
> // eo object method calls batch,
> // DO NOT use return statement in it, use break if necessary
And you might want to update this comment.
Lucas De Marchi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
