Am 03/07/2014 06:23 AM, schrieb Milan Broz:
> On 03/06/2014 09:39 PM, Lars Winterfeld wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> in light of the latest "goto fail"s out there, would you reject a patch
>> replacing all 328 gotos with their semantic equivalents from structured
>> C programming?
>
> cryptsetup code uss goto for only one purpose: to have only one exit
> place from a function (with check for errors, release memory).
>
> Replacing it with anything else means duplicating of lot of code.
I agree that code duplication is undesirable. I can think of two
alternatives to goto that do not duplicate code. The first is to
introduce a one-time loop like this:
do {
// foo
if(a) break; // was: goto out;
// bar
if(b) break; // was: goto out;
// "all good" code
return 0;
} while(0);
// was: out:
// "on error" code
return -1;
The second alternative would be to introduce a new function like
int foo_failed(struct bar* p) {
// clean p
return -1;
}
and then inside the "int foo()":
if(a) return foo_failed(p);
instead of
if(a) goto fail;
Like with indentation, I think this is just a question of coding style.
Changes there don't make the program better, it just makes the code
nicer to read in the eyes of some people.
It's up to you. I would do the work. What do you think?
Cheers,
Lars
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
