Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 11:52:18 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Cc: terry@lambert.org, davidg@root.com, hackers@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: Coding style ( was Re: why is this not a bug in namei?) Message-ID: <199509191852.LAA10314@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199509190433.WAA24091@rocky.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Sep 18, 95 10:33:01 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > According to a Bell Labs study, human beings are capable of keeping 5 to > > 9 items in short term memory simultaneously. That would be why phone > > numbers are 7 digits. > > > > I'm not even taxing the low end of the study participants. > > What this has to do with you using goto's I have no idea. It shows that David's complaint about 3 goto's is religious, and not as he said a result of battling obfuscation. > > On the other hand, if I want block profiling without having to rewrite > > the compiler, then I have to add a block start on function entry and > > one on every function exit. If there is one function exit, then I > > have to add one. > > Again, what this has to do with you using goto's I have no idea. Getting to the one function exit the way the BSD code is currently written requires a goto. > > This "anti-goto-political-correctness-bullshit" has to go. Anyone who > > thinks a for loop generates prettier assembly than an label/if/goto > > had better read more compiler output. > > Huh? I am in *complete* agreement with David here. I have looked at > *thousands* if not *millions* of lines of code in my years in > programming. Although there are times when gotos are necessary AND they > improve readability, they are the exception rather than the rule. When > I see two gotos in a single function it is my opinion that the author > has not spent the time to write the code in a readable manner. Now, > there may be a completely valid reason for it, but it will take a lot > for me to believe that. :) > > A rule enforced in all software houses I've worked in. "Programmers who > use gotos will be publically ridiculed" I look forward to your and David's patches to the following functions, and to the functions not in these two subdirectories that have the same "goto infestation problem": kern/kern_exec.c:execve() kern/kern_fork.c:fork1() kern/kern_ktrace.c:ktrace() kern/kern_physio.c:phsyio() kern/kern_sig.c:psignal() kern/kern_synch.c:tsleep() kern/subr_diskslice.c:dscheck() kern/subr_diskslice.c:dsopen() kern/subr_prf.c:kprintf() kern/subr_prf.c:sprintf() kern/subr_rlist.c:rlist_free() kern/sys_generic.c:readv() kern/sys_generic.c:writev() kern/sys_generic.c:select() kern/tty.c:ttyinput() kern/tty_pty.c:ptcwrite() kern/uipc_mbuf.c:m_pullup() kern/uipc_socket.c:soclose() kern/uipc_socket.c:sodisconnect() kern/uipc_socket.c:sosend() kern/uipc_socket.c:soreceive() kern/uipc_socket.c:sosetopt() kern/uipc_socket2.c:soerserve() kern/uipc_syscalls.c:socketpair() kern/uipc_syscalls.c:sendit() kern/uipc_syscalls.c:recvit() kern/uipc_syscalls.c:pipe() kern/uipc_syscalls.c:getpeername1() kern/uipc_usrreq.c:uipc_usrreq() kern/vfs_bio.c:getnewbuf() kern/vfs_bio.c:getblk() kern/vfs_bio.c:allocbuf() kern/vfs_cluster.c:cluster_wbuild() kern/vfs_lookup.c:lookup() kern/vfs_lookup.c:relookup() kern/vfs_subr.c:checkalias() kern/vfs_subr.c:vfs_hang_addrlist() kern/vfs_subr.c:vfs_msync() kern/vfs_syscalls.c:symlink() kern/vfs_syscalls.c:rename() kern/vfs_syscalls.c:rmdir() kern/vfs_syscalls.c:getdirentries() kern/vfs_syscalls.c:revoke() kern/vfs_vnops.c:vn_open() vm/vm_fault.c:vm_fault() vm/vm_glue.c:scheduler() vm/vm_map.c:vm_map_copy() vm/vm_map.c:vm_map_lookup() vm/vm_mmap.c:vm_mmap() vm/vm_object.c:_vm_object_page_clean() vm/vm_object.c:vm_object_copy() vm/vm_object.c:vm_object_page_remove() ... Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509191852.LAA10314>