Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 17:58, David Daney<ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Friday 11 September 2009 01:56:42 David Daney wrote:
+/* Unreachable code */
+#ifndef unreachable
+# define unreachable() do { for (;;) ; } while (0)
+#endif
# define unreachable() do { } while (1)
? :)
Clearly I was not thinking clearly when I wrote that part. RTH noted the
same thing. I will fix it.
However, people are so used to seeing the `do { } while (0)' idiom,
that they might miss
there's a `1' here, not a `0'.
So perhaps it's better to use plain `for (;;)' for infinite loops?
I don't think so. The only valid token that can follow 'do { } while
(1)' is ';', any statement may follow 'for (;;)', so there is a greater
possibility to silently screw things up with the for(;;) form.
David Daney
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-alpha" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
