Hi! 5-Янв-2005 08:30 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pat Villani) wrote to freedos-kernel@lists.sourceforge.net:
>>>+++ inthndlr.c 31 Dec 2004 12:46:21 -0000 1.87.2.13 >>> return_user(); >>>- break; >> I think, for readability purposes (to make understanding by new >>developers easier) `break' should be remained as comment. Something like: >> /* return_user() never returns, so "break" not need */ PV> That's really bad practice. The reason that it's there is so if, by PV> reason of a bug or hardware failure of any sort, return_user() does PV> really return, you will have bug that will be a nightmare to find. No, I say not this (that `break' should be present): I say, that new kernel developer may not know (yet) that return_user() never returns, so [s]he may wonder, why there is no `break' and why this is not a bug. So, commenting this trick may ease the understanding of this code. PV> For the savings of less than 10 bytes, it's not worth the risk. BTW, `break' here really (may) save some bytes, because tails merging. ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt _______________________________________________ Freedos-kernel mailing list Freedos-kernel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel