On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 05:28:58PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 23:59 +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >
> > On February 28, 2022 10:42:53 PM GMT+02:00, James Bottomley <
> > James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 21:07 +0100, Christian König wrote:
> [...]
> > > > > I do wish we could actually poison the 'pos' value after the
> > > > > loop somehow - but clearly the "might be uninitialized" I was
> > > > > hoping for isn't the way to do it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anybody have any ideas?
> > > >
> > > > I think we should look at the use cases why code is touching
> > > > (pos) after the loop.
> > > >
> > > > Just from skimming over the patches to change this and experience
> > > > with the drivers/subsystems I help to maintain I think the
> > > > primary pattern looks something like this:
> > > >
> > > > list_for_each_entry(entry, head, member) {
> > > > if (some_condition_checking(entry))
> > > > break;
> > > > }
> > > > do_something_with(entry);
> > >
> > > Actually, we usually have a check to see if the loop found
> > > anything, but in that case it should something like
> > >
> > > if (list_entry_is_head(entry, head, member)) {
> > > return with error;
> > > }
> > > do_somethin_with(entry);
> > >
> > > Suffice? The list_entry_is_head() macro is designed to cope with
> > > the bogus entry on head problem.
> >
> > Won't suffice because the end goal of this work is to limit scope of
> > entry only to loop. Hence the need for additional variable.
>
> Well, yes, but my objection is more to the size of churn than the
> desire to do loop local. I'm not even sure loop local is possible,
> because it's always annoyed me that for (int i = 0; ... in C++ defines
> i in the outer scope not the loop scope, which is why I never use it.
In C its scope is the rest of the declaration and the entire loop, not
anything after it. This was the same in C++98 already, btw (but in
pre-standard versions of C++ things were like you remember, yes, and it
was painful).
Segher
