Hello!
On Sep 10, 2014, at 10:36 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 16:06 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 11:43 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 01:38:13PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>>> Macros with flow control statements (goto and return) are
>>>>> not very nice to read as any flow movement is unexpected.
>>>
>>> break and continue are also flow control statements
>>> but are those are frequently used in macros in
>>> complete switch statements so were not added.
>>
>> Would it be possible to make a warning when there is a break or continue
>> but no while/switch/etc.
>
> I suppose the has_flow_statement could be extended.
>
> Maybe something like:
>
> if ($ctx =~ /\b(goto|return|break|continue)\b/ &&
> $ctx !~ /\b(switch|if|do|while)\b/) {
> has_flow_statement = 1;
> }
>
> but checkpatch isn't really capable of doing proper
> flow logic analysis.
While possibly not really suitable in checkpatch, it might be a good addition to
some static code analyzer as a "future bugs possible due to this" check.
Bye,
Oleg--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
