avr-gcc-list
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [avr-gcc-list] Wrong excution order in 4.1.1, but not 3.4.5, regress


From: David Brown
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] Wrong excution order in 4.1.1, but not 3.4.5, regression?
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:00:36 +0100
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)

Graham Davies wrote:
David Brown wrote (in part):

There are at least two of ways to interpret "a = b = c" while maintaining right-to-left associativity, when the variables are all volatile:

You're right. I was wrong. I should have taken more time to understand the nature of the problem. Especially given the well-chosen text of the subject.

Code which is unclear to the writer and to readers is bad code.

I agree. Different definition of the word "wrong", but bad code = wrong code works for me.

Humbly, Graham.


I sometimes get a little fanatical about what is "bad" or "wrong" code. For example, I'd say the following function is bad code:

int square(int x) {
        int doubleX;            // This holds x + 3
        doubleX = x * x;        // Find the square root
        return doubleX;         // Return a random value
}


This will certainly implement a "square" function, but having incorrect, misleading or unclear names and comments is as bad as a functional error, IMHO.

Being a little fanatic, and having my own rules about what parts of C to use or not (for example, the comma operator does not do what a comma operator should do, and thus I never use it), my comments are not always clear to anyone other than myself.

Best regards,

David




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]