Messages in this thread | | | From | Michael Buesch <> | Subject | Re: kernel/timer.c: next_timer_interrupt() strange/buggy(?) code (2.6.18-rc1-mm2) | Date | Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:29:27 +0200 |
| |
On Monday 17 July 2006 21:57, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:53:30 +0200, Andreas Mohr said: > > Hi all, > > > > > for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { > > j = INDEX(i); > > do { > > > if (j < (INDEX(i)) && i < 3) > > list = varray[i + 1]->vec + (INDEX(i + 1)); > > goto found; > > } while (j != (INDEX(i))); > > } > > found: > > > Excuse me, but why do we have a while loop here if the last instruction in > > the while loop is a straight "goto found"? > > Consider if we take the 'goto found' when i==1. We leave not only the do/while > but also the for loop. A 'continue' instead would leave the do/while and then > drive the i==2 and subsequent 'for' iterations....
No, it would not. A 'continue' instead of the 'goto found' would compile to nothing. Try the following example with and without the 'continue'.
#include <stdio.h> int main(void) { int i, j; for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) { j = 0; do { printf("i==%d, j==%d\n", i, j); j++; /* goto found; */ continue; } while (j < 2); } }
Continue is equal to:
LOOP { /* foo */ goto continue; /* == continue */ /* foo */ continue: } LOOP
-- Greetings Michael. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |