Jelmer,
Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
Then please don't say you don't consider yourself responsible (perhaps
there is some language confusion here?).
Probably I've not expressed it correctly.
It was like this: since the Solaris "cc" compiler blamed about this I
thought that it would be convenient to quiet these warnings. Exactly
this was the intention.
And I really think that it's not a fault to fix warnings (naturally in a
convenient and acceptable manner) if the behaviour doesn't change. And
exactly here we have such a case.
The coding style guide is important, but even more important is common
sense. Just because the coding style doesn't forbid something doesn't
mean it's a good idea.
Yes, I agree.
Most compilers probably wouldn't even compile this code into the binary
if they noticed it wasn't reachable. Even if they did then this
improvement is negligible. It will save us literally a couple of mmapped
bytes in the testsuite code at most.
Please look at the bigger picture. These are a few bytes. A full Samba 4
developer build is something like 230 Mb. Again, even if the compiler
didn't optimize out that return statement then there wouldn't be any
relevant difference. (I'll leave out fs blocks for simplicity here)
If we were that desperate to reduce the size of our binaries on disk
then we would be reducing the length of the names of the symbols we
export, we'd be removing DEBUG statements, we'd be removing comments in
Python code.
I could the point in changing this code if it made it more readable, but
it doesn't do that.
Agreed, it doesn't change much - btw here a related Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_code_elimination - but the intention
was more to quiet the warnings than the filesize.
Cheers,
Matthias
