Re: Warn on macros with flow control statements

[Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>]

Sumitra Sharma wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 11:19:12PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > Based on the flow control I would do something like this.  It is a bit more
> > > > verbose but is very clear what is happening.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Ira, what do you think of my suggestion of
> > > 
> > > err = err || qlge_fill_seg_(...);
> > > 
> > > It would avoid 40 lines of ifs, and would still avoid calling
> > > qlge_fill_seg_ as soon as there is a failure.  On ther other hand, I don't
> > > recall this being done elsewhere, so maybe all the ifs would be
> > > preferable.
> > 
> > Oh sorry.  I miss read your suggestion and I thought it was going to
> > continue running qlge_fill_seg_() for all the other calls.  I read this
> > as:
> > 
> > err = err | qlge_fill_seg_(...);
> > 
> > Not sure why.  Just late I guess.
> > 
> > Yes your suggestion would work.  I do think it is a bit odd though.
> >
> 
> Hi Ira,
> 
> I would like to know why do you think this is odd? 

First, it is _not_ wrong.  Just was odd in my head.

> 
> PS: I was trying to implement your suggestion and was able to connect to
> what julia wrote here. 
> 
> For reference this is the link to your suggestion https://lore.kernel.org/outreachy/64154d438f0c8_28ae5229421@iweiny-mobl.notmuch/

I think what Julia proposes is better given this is a pattern is used
elsewhere.  I've just not run across it myself.

I find it odd because the parser in my head is not used to it.  :-D  But
sometimes one has to _read_ the code carefully.  ;-)

Again, I think Julia's suggestion is best given that mine will result in a
lot more code in the end.  And when reading the function you really only
have to grok the first call.  Then the pattern holds through the function.

Ira