Hi!
5-Янв-2005 12:07 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pat Villani) wrote to
freedos-kernel@lists.sourceforge.net:
>> :) We can't protect from such hardware failures (when executed random
>>pieces of code). :(
PV> Actually, you can.
No - because hardware failures (on which code works) may be _very_
di
Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
:) We can't protect from such hardware failures (when executed random
pieces of code). :(
Actually, you can. Changing something like this is the difference
between a stable and unstable kernel. BTW -- that wasn't random code
execution. It was an untested piece o
Hi!
5-Янв-2005 09:19 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pat Villani) wrote to
freedos-kernel@lists.sourceforge.net:
PV> The "-" in the diff says that the break is removed entirely. Did you
PV> actually mean this, given your reply?
Yes. Break is removed, but later some new developer may wonder, "why
there
Hi Arkady,
The "-" in the diff says that the break is removed entirely. Did you
actually mean this, given your reply?
I think you do save 2 or 3 bytes per break, depending on the compiler.
However, I can relate to you an amusing experience. At one time, I did
some consulting for Bell Labs.
Hi!
5-Янв-2005 08:30 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pat Villani) wrote to
freedos-kernel@lists.sourceforge.net:
>>>+++ inthndlr.c31 Dec 2004 12:46:21 - 1.87.2.13
>>> return_user();
>>>- break;
>> I think, for readability purposes (to make understanding by new
>>developers easi
That's really bad practice. The reason that it's there is so if, by
reason of a bug or hardware failure of any sort, return_user() does
really return, you will have bug that will be a nightmare to find. For
the savings of less than 10 bytes, it's not worth the risk.
Pat
Arkady V.Belousov wrot
Салям!
31-Дек-2004 12:46 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luchezar Georgiev) wrote to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> +++ inthndlr.c31 Dec 2004 12:46:21 - 1.87.2.13
> @@ -752,7 +752,6 @@
>return_user();
> - break;
> @@ -1025,7 +1027,6 @@
>return_user();
> - break;
I think,
