Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 00:50:15 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Jaakko Heinonen <jh@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r216954 - head/sys/kern Message-ID: <4D258247.5030707@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20110106062530.Y1027@besplex.bde.org> References: <201101041316.p04DGSo6037042@svn.freebsd.org> <201101041314.08949.jhb@freebsd.org> <20110105161720.GA1388@a91-153-123-205.elisa-laajakaista.fi> <201101051144.56940.jhb@freebsd.org> <20110106062530.Y1027@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/5/11 11:39 AM, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Wed, 5 Jan 2011, John Baldwin wrote: > >> On Wednesday, January 05, 2011 11:17:20 am Jaakko Heinonen wrote: >>> On 2011-01-04, John Baldwin wrote: >>>> Err, no, the point of NOTREACHED is to serve as documentation for >>>> lint(1), but >>>> that has subsequently been obsoleted by __dead2. >>> >>> style(9) is out of date then? >> >> According to bde@'s most recent e-mails, yes. > > It's obviously out of date, since its only example of using > NOTREACHED is after a usage() call, and this usage is missing a > __dead2. Of course it > doesn't use NOTREACHED after its 3 exit() calls or its 2 err() calls or > its 1 errx() call, so its "should" requirement for using NOTREACHED is > mostly not satisfied by itself. However I feel that teh notreached comment is as much for the reader as the compiler/lint. Removing it makes the code harder to understand for the feeble minded such as myself. > > Bruce >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D258247.5030707>