This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA: coding style tweaks
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Cc: Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>, <gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 21:28:37 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: RFA: coding style tweaks
On Mon, 13 May 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > for the code:
> >>
> >> /* It's not us. Try all our children, and return the lowest. */
> >> {
> >> struct macro_source_file *child;
> >> struct macro_source_file *best = 0;
> >> int best_depth;
> >>
> >> for (child = source->includes; child; child = child->next_included)
> >> {
> >> struct macro_source_file *result
> >> = macro_lookup_inclusion (child, name);
> >>
> >> if (result)
> >> {
> >> int result_depth = inclusion_depth (result);
> >>
> >> if (! best || result_depth < best_depth) <-- HERE
> >
> >
> > It's an obvious false positive (!best will be true the first time through,
> > meaning the only time we check best_depth, it's already been set at
> > least once).
>
> (I know it is a ``false positive'' but then again if GCC can't figure it
> out, how will I :-)
Depends on which version of gcc. Some can figure it out.
:)
Fun, isn't -Wuninitialized?
>
> > Here, you can't just initialize best_depth to 0, you have to initialize it
> > to either INT_MAX, or inclusion_depth (result).
>
> Since || is a short-circuit, the RHS really doesn't matter.
Yeah, yer right.
> INT_MAX, though, would make it clearer, could even drop ``!best''.
And 3 years from now, when someone decides to rewrite this code, they
won't break it if they decide to transform that way.
>
> enjoy,
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>