On Thu, 21 Jul 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > I think the original code was fine. > > I suggest to reconsider involved implementation details once more. > > > > x = blah(); if (x) ... is a perfectly familiar kernel coding pattern. > > I can agree to such a general information. > > > > There is no benefit in terms of performance > > It might be possible that a good compiler can also optimise > some unnecessary variable accesses away. A compiler written by an undergrad can optimize the variable away in this case. That's what compilers do. > Examples for further background information: > * "Minimize local variables" > https://eventhelix.com/realtimemantra/basics/optimizingcandcppcode.htm#Minimize%20Local%20Variables > > * "Temporary Objects" by Danny Kalev > http://www.informit.com/guides/content.aspx?g=cplusplus&seqNum=198 > > > > or understandability in dropping the variable. > > I guess that we have got different opinions on such an aspect. > > * Do you really want to assign every return value from a function call > to an extra variable before it is used again? If it's a choice between 1) function call on many lines, 2) function call over 80 characters, and 3) extra variable, I definitely prefer the extra variable. julia > > * How many reading and understanding capacity do you need for each > extra variable? > > Regards, > Markus > -- > 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 > -- 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
