Ralf Thielow <ralf.thielow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> If "--show-c-function" output is the problem, perhaps we should know a bit >> better about what C function header looks like? > > In fact the "--show-c-function" output is the problem. But I think that > a change can't be rejected because of another issue. Well, I never said anything about rejection nor acceptance. > The style of placing "goto"-statements, which leave a function to the > end of that is used in many other projects. And I think > it's very usefull. It is a good discipline to follow in general to place an exceptional case at the end if you jump out of the general flow. But because the affected function was so small, its readability doesn't benefit very much from the discipline (in other words, you knew about a good discipline, but applied it to a wrong function). The patch was small and obviously correct, so it will not hurt, but it will not make the world greatly a better place, either. IOW, it was a "Meh" topic for me. It was more important to discuss Jonathan's "leave SP at the beginning of a goto label to please --show-c-function" from the maintainer's point of view, as people may remember it as a rule and start sending patches that follow it, which I will need to deal with in the future. I do not think that one is a good rule. Now that we have dealt with that more important business of letting people know that protecting goto labels with a leading SP is _not_ the rule ;-), I am happy with this discussion. And often I forget about the original issue when a discussion reaches this stage of happiness. So thanks for reminding me. As I said, even though I do not think the particular function you touched badly needs the discipline applied, it would not hurt, and it obviously is the right thing to do (iow, if the function were written from day one in a way your patch reorganized it, we would never accept a patch to change it into today's shape of jumping backwards). For one thing, it would remove an example from the codebase people can point at to make excuses when responding to a review of their patch that adds a backward goto to a much larger function. Will queue after massaging the log message somewhat. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html