On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 01:54:59PM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> Hi
>
> Am 14.02.22 um 13:47 schrieb Ville Syrjälä:
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 01:12:48PM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> Am 14.02.22 um 11:38 schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> >>> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:03:53AM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> >>>> Am 11.02.22 um 16:41 schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> >>>
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>>>>> IMO *always* prefer a for loop over while or do-while.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The for (i = 0; i < N; i++) is such a strong paradigm in C. You
> >>>>>> instantly know how many times you're going to loop, at a glance. Not so
> >>>>>> with with the alternatives, which should be used sparingly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> while () {} _is_ a paradigm, for-loop is syntax sugar on top of it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Naw, that's not true.
> >>>
> >>> In the section 3.5 "Loops - While and For" in "The C Programming
> >>> Language" 2nd by K&R, the authors said:
> >>
> >> Year of publication: 1988 . It's not the most up-to-date reference for C
> >> programming.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The for statement ... is equivalent to ... while..."
> >>>
> >>> They said that for is equivalent to while, and not otherwise.
> >>
> >> Even leaving readability aside, it's not equivalent. You can declare
> >> variables as part of the for statement. (I know it's not the kernel's
> >> style.) Also, 'continue' statements are not well-suited in for loops,
> >> because it's non-obvious if the loop's update statement is being
> >> executed. (It isn't.)
> >
> > It is.
> >
> > 'continue' is just shorthand for 'goto end_of_loop_body'.
>
> Well, indeed. lol
>
> Fun fact: I actually had to look this up and still got it wrong. Let me
> just count it under proving-my-point: continue in a for statement is a
> bad idea and for isn't equivalent to while.
Nah. We use 'continue' a *lot* in for loops in kms/atomic code.
I'd be surprised if you can find many loops without a 'continue'.
Looking at the loc stats I was a bit surprised to see more 'break'
but then I realized switch() is bloating up those numbers quite
a bit.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
