Corey Minyard <miny...@acm.org> writes: > On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 03:23:26PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: >> Hello, >> >> This is the type of cleanup I've contributed to Libvirt >> during the last year. Figured QEMU also deserves the same >> care. >> >> The idea here is remove unneeded labels. By 'unneeded' I >> mean labels that does nothing but a 'return' call. One >> common case is something like this: >> >> if () >> goto cleanup; >> [...] >> cleanup: >> return 0; >> >> This code can be simplified to: >> >> if () >> return 0; >> >> >> Which is cleaner and requires less brain cycles to wonder >> whether the 'cleanup' label does anything special, such >> as a heap memory cleanup. > > I would disagree with this analysis. To me, I often wonder > when I have to add cleanup code to a routine whether there is > some hidden return in the middle of the function. That's a lot > harder to spot than just looking for the cleanup label at the > end of the function to see what it does.
A cleanup label does not preclude existence of return. You have to check for return anyway. > For non-trivial > functions I prefer to have one point of return at the end > (and maybe some minor checks with returns right at the beginning). > I'm not adamant about this, just my opinion. I'm in Daniel's camp: if there's no need for cleanup, return without ado. > But if we are going to fix things like this, it might be best to add > them to the coding style document and checkpatch script. Otherwise > these sorts of things will just continue. Maybe.
