On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 06:05:48PM +0200, Dan Aloni wrote:
> But, it CAN be used in *local* driver call branches. Writing a new
> driver? have a lot of local nested calls? Hate goto's? You can use
> exceptions.
Is this really anything other than syntactic sugar? Maybe it's different
in drivers, but I find myself doing the following in user space all the time
#define unless(x) if (!(x)) /* perl/BCPL corrupted me */
function(...)
{
char *foo = 0, *bar = 0;
int locked = 0;
int rc = -1;
if (bad args or something) {
out: if (foo) free(foo);
if (bar) free(bar);
if (locked) unlock();
return (rc);
}
unless (locked = get_the_lock()) goto out;
unless (foo = allocate_foo()) goto out;
unless (bar = allocate_bar()) goto out;
more code....
rc = 0;
goto out;
}
It seems ugly at first but it has some nice attributes:
a) all the cleanup is in one place, for both the error path and the
non-error path. I could put it at the bottom, I like it at the
top because that's where I tend to have the list of things needed
to be cleaned.
b) all the error cases are branches, the normal path is straightline.
c) it's as dense as I can make it.
So how would you do the same thing with exceptions?
-- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 21:00:50 EST