Hi Graham, Carl,
On Tue 23 Aug 2011 19:34:37 BST, Carl Sorensen wrote:
On 8/23/11 12:21 PM, ianhuli...@gmail.com ianhuli...@gmail.com wrote:
LGTM
Maybe we should have some GOP rules for C++ about this?
Only have multiple exit points from routines if you absolutely have to.
Multiple
Ian Hulin ianhuli...@gmail.com writes:
I'm not asking for a grand re-write on this, but for single-exit to be
the preferred style for new code and patches where this would not
provoke changes on a GCR (Grand Code Re-write) scale.
I disagree. Structured exits decrease the level of nesting and
Am Wednesday, 24. August 2011, 10:49:30 schrieben Sie:
Hi Graham, Carl,
On Tue 23 Aug 2011 19:34:37 BST, Carl Sorensen wrote:
On 8/23/11 12:21 PM, ianhuli...@gmail.com ianhuli...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe we should have some GOP rules for C++ about this?
Only have multiple exit points from
On 2011-08-24, at 05:10 , Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Am Wednesday, 24. August 2011, 10:49:30 schrieben Sie:
Hi Graham, Carl,
On Tue 23 Aug 2011 19:34:37 BST, Carl Sorensen wrote:
On 8/23/11 12:21 PM, ianhuli...@gmail.com ianhuli...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe we should have some GOP rules for
Dan Eble d...@faithful.be writes:
There can be a run-time performance difference between branching or
not branching. For the times you actually care, if you're not going
to use compiler-specific features to mark conditions as likely or
unlikely, you should test the likely case first so that
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 3:21 PM, ianhuli...@gmail.com wrote:
LGTM
Maybe we should have some GOP rules for C++ about this?
Can we not? Professionally, I work with an enormous style guide, and
having a lot of style prescribed needlessly complicates code reviews,
because it makes people hammer
On 2011-08-24, at 09:25 , David Kastrup wrote:
Modern compilers pay very little attention to how you arrange the source
code of equivalent constructs.
My experience trying to finagle optimized code out of gcc was more than a year
ago, and the compiler was probably a bit older than that (not
Reviewers: ,
Message:
Please review to get rid of some uninitialized variables.
Description:
Fix uninitialized variables when Source_file::get_counts returns early
due to !contains (pos_str0)
Most code that called get_counts simply is like:
int line, chr, col, offset = 0;
LGTM.
Thanks!
Carl
http://codereview.appspot.com/4940047/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:14:06AM +, reinhold.kainho...@gmail.com wrote:
Fix uninitialized variables when Source_file::get_counts returns early
due to !contains (pos_str0)
LGTM
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
LGTM
Maybe we should have some GOP rules for C++ about this?
Only have multiple exit points from routines if you absolutely have to.
Make sure any output parameters are declared and initialized at the top
of a routine so that however a routine exits, they are left in a defined
state
Ian
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 06:21:00PM +, ianhuli...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe we should have some GOP rules for C++ about this?
Only have multiple exit points from routines if you absolutely have to.
Make sure any output parameters are declared and initialized at the top
of a routine so that
On 8/23/11 12:21 PM, ianhuli...@gmail.com ianhuli...@gmail.com wrote:
LGTM
Maybe we should have some GOP rules for C++ about this?
Only have multiple exit points from routines if you absolutely have to.
Multiple exit points is a standard idiom of the LilyPond code. Basically,
the idiom is
13 matches
Mail list logo
