3 ms·
Ok, I understand now. Thanks. This is a pretty common way to write C, though, it's not something specific to this particular codebase. You just had a non-stand
by akkartik 10y ago
Ok, I understand now. Thanks.
This is a pretty common way to write C, though, it's not something specific to this particular codebase. You just had a non-standard use case where you were constantly running into low-level bugs. (In an embedded platform?) If you aren't in that domain anymore, it's worth revisiting the trade-off. In most domains, gdb's continue command is super useful.
- quickben 10y agoMhm. One was an actuall driver/firmware developmwnt. The other one a cross platform debugger. I will in few hours, thanks.
- dboreham 10y agoNo. Parent is correct. Writing code just to show how clever you are, at the expense of others who need to debug and understand it later, is poor taste.
- abecedarius 10y agoIt's pretty weird to see "correct" justified by calling the opposite "poor taste". We're talking about a mismatch between a style of code and certain tools; a better answer is to use tools that work well with the style of code you like.
- mypalmike 10y agoIt's not just tooling. The more complex the expression, the more likely it would aid in understanding if you gave it a name.
- abecedarius 10y agoI agree that naming expressions often helps understanding, and that's worthwhile -- I guess I just disagree about this code at first glance. Maybe if I tried to delve into it.