On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 06:03:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 05:52:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > for_each_something(foo)
> > if (foo->bla)
> > call_bla(foo);
> > else
> > call_default(foo);
> >
> > Totally contrived, but this complains. Liberally sprinkling {} also shuts
> > up the compiler, but it's a bit confusing given that a plain for {;;} is
> > totally fine. And it's confusing since at first glance the compiler
> > complaining about nested if and ambigous else doesn't make sense since
> > clearly there's only 1 if there.
>
> Ah, so the pattern the compiler tries to warn about is:
>
> if (foo)
> if (bar)
> /* stmts1 */
> else
> /* stmts2 *
>
> Because it might not be immediately obvious with which if the else goes.
> Which is fair enough I suppose.
>
> OK, ACK.
Just to bikeshed, there could be macros other than for_each_*() macros
that will want to use this internally, so perhaps it would be worth the
generic version being named something like if_noelse().
We could always add that as/when required, though.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
