Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!vanvleck!uwmcsd1!bbn!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!speech2.cs.cmu.edu!jgk
From: jgk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Joe Keane)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Branch Delay Annullment
Message-ID: <1995@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 19 Jun 88 21:43:03 GMT
References: <22065@amdcad.AMD.COM> <12211@apple.Apple.COM> <27527@pyramid.pyramid.com> <12300@apple.Apple.COM> <4053@cbmvax.UUCP>
Sender: netnews@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Organization: Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 29

In article <4053@cbmvax.UUCP> jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes:
>	I don't know about you, but I tend to write code that looks more
>like:
>	if (!error) {
>		...
>	} [else { ... }]
>
>	Especially useful when doing resource allocations, like "if (!(ptr =
>(struct ptr *) malloc(xyzzy))) { use ptr } else { return error }".

I think that's less common, especially with multiple errors.  A lot of
my code looks like:

	if ((... = open (...)) < 0)
	  quit (...);
	if (!(... = fopen (...)))
	  quit (...);
	if (!(... = malloc (...)))
	  quit (...);
	if ((... = read (...)) < 0)
	  quit (...);
	if (fscanf (...) != 1)
	  quit (...);
	...

It'd be nice if the compiler knew quit (same as `fprintf (stderr,
...); exit (...);') is a `dead' function, so it knows the branch is
usually taken.

--Joe