From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 14:50:48 +0000 Subject: Re: fs-fat: Less function calls in fat_fill_super() after error detection Message-Id: <5479DD48.6030508@users.sourceforge.net> List-Id: References: <5307CAA2.8060406@users.sourceforge.net> <530A72AA.3000601@users.sourceforge.net> <530B5FB6.6010207@users.sourceforge.net> <530C5E18.1020800@users.sourceforge.net> <530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net> <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <5467B12C.4010602@users.sourceforge.net> <54796B5E.5040707@users.sourceforge.net> <87sih22sn8.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <87lhmu2jl8.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> In-Reply-To: <87lhmu2jl8.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr > More labels are more chances of bug (and we don't care micro optimize > on this error path), isn't it? I would prefer that a few jump targets can be redirected so that unnecessary function calls (and corresponding checks) can be avoided. > Increasing the chance of bugs and bothers developers for analyzer sounds > like strange. There are different opinions around source code clarity. > (And we are initializing those for avoiding to be bothered by choosing > correct label. Pointer initialisation is convenient and safe in some use cases, isn't it? > If we really care micro optimize, initialization of those should not > be required and should not be touched on other paths, and gcc can warn > its usage.) I imagine that a software optimiser can eventually perform better job if unneeded statements could be omitted, couldn't it? Regards, Markus