functions that don't return
karl at haddock
karl at haddock
Tue Sep 23 00:38:00 AEST 1986
tl-vaxa!lindsay (Don Lindsay) writes:
>There has been some discussion about functions that never return (e.g exit).
>It was suggested that if a compiler could be told about this, then it
>could generate better code.
>
>In fact, these functions sometimes DO return (and in that case, the compiler
>had better have allowed for that).
Hogwash. "Functions that never return" and "functions that sometimes DO
return" describe disjoint sets. Functions genuinely in the latter set (e.g.
pre-ANSI abort()) are not under consideration here.
>For example, a storage allocator may decide to exit, because his caller has
>reached some limit. But, the developer of this storage allocator wishes to
>write a test program, and she wants the test program to exercise this
>feature. The test program can be more powerful, and more convenient, and
>easier to document and use, if it can make the "exit" routine return!
What if the function that calls exit() doesn't fall into a return? (E.g.
"if (p == NULL) exit(1); *p = ..." will bomb if exit() doesn't exit.) And
if you supersede exit() with a function that returns, how do you get out of
the program? Send yourself a signal?
>Similarly, a program may detect an unusual condition, and call a handler
>for it. It is more general if it is the handler which decides whether or
>not to return. (Perhaps one would link in different handlers under different
>circumstances.) It is quite common for people to write over-specified
>programs, where the mainline "knows" what kind of handler is out there.
>The existence of a new function type would mostly encourage such limited
>thinking.
On the contrary, it would encourage the author to document (via declaration)
what the specification is. It's the author's right to insist on a handler
that doesn't return, if there's no appropriate default handler. (A storage
allocator normally does have an appropriate default handler: "return (NULL)")
You might as well be arguing that "void" is a bad idea because it encourages
people to write functions that don't return an error check.
Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl at haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint
More information about the Comp.lang.c
mailing list