Hi!
5-Янв-2005 08:30 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pat Villani) wrote to
[email protected]:
>>>+++ 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
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel
