On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 07:55:20PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I think a better name would be really good, but both when we added it
> for i915 and when we move it to drm headers we drew a blank.
> if_noelse() describes pretty good what it does, but kinda fails on the
> "where should I use it" departement. If there's some consensus I can
> sed the patches quickly.
Just to be clear: for_each_if() is fine by me, so no need to change
things.
Sorry for the noise!
Mark.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
