[Swan-dev] Problematic commits in master

Antony Antony antony at phenome.org
Wed Apr 12 07:42:18 UTC 2017

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 02:10:32PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Can we agree that the use of macros that conditionally return as a
> side effect are, in general, a bad idea and their use should not be
> encouraged? 

why is it a bad idea? one reason I can think is running in gdb. I think it is easy to work around that. So I don't agree with you yet. 

When there is a need for several calls to such a macro replacing it with inlined version get confusing.

stf_status res = accept_ike_sa_rekey_req(md, pst,st);
if (res != STF_OK) {
	return res;


RETURN_STF_FAILURE_STATUS(accept_ike_sa_rekey_req(md, pst,st)); 

Imagine this 5 - 10 times.

I do find having RETURN_STF_FAILURE and RETURN_STF_FAILURE_STATUS is a bit confusing. 
However, I hope to get rid of one, once we have a general way of replying with notification with payloads.
My idea is RETURN_STF_FAILURE which return stf_status and not v2_v2_notification_t_t. One day we will get there:)


More information about the Swan-dev mailing list