Factorization of some code.
Jeffrey A Law
Mon Jan 18 20:39:00 GMT 1999
In message < 199901182219.XAA28369@mururoa.inria.fr >you write:
> I'd use -1 instead of 0 as 0 might be a valid parameter (think of -O0
> for example (even if I'm not sure that the function
> read_integral_parameter can fully apply to the -O switches)).
Fine. Note that in the case where we get an error, we call "error", maybe we
should call fatal instead.
> One drawback of having the value returned is that then this value has
> to be checked for each call in order to restore some reasonnable
> default. This leads to the following style:
That assumes that we want to continue compilation. I guess we should follow
whatever existing conventions are in place for bogus arguments.
I think passing in a default value is probably a good thing to do -- it makes
it part of the interface -- if something bad happens we call error and return
the default value.
Otherwise it's not particularly clear who has the responsiblity of setting
a default value for non-fatal error cases.
More information about the Gcc-patches