From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA6E38582AE
 for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Thu,  4 Aug 2022 17:10:42 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org AFA6E38582AE
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none)
 header.from=kernel.crashing.org
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel.crashing.org
Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 274H9g0x027032;
 Thu, 4 Aug 2022 12:09:42 -0500
Received: (from segher@localhost)
 by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 274H9fH0027031;
 Thu, 4 Aug 2022 12:09:41 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to
 segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2022 12:09:41 -0500
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: HAO CHEN GUI <guihaoc@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, David <dje.gcc@gmail.com>,
 "Kewen.Lin" <linkw@linux.ibm.com>, Peter Bergner <bergner@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH,
 rs6000] Correct return value of check_p9modulo_hw_available
Message-ID: <20220804170941.GM25951@gate.crashing.org>
References: <315e43e5-3167-50de-08ec-ab83202e55a0@linux.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <315e43e5-3167-50de-08ec-ab83202e55a0@linux.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS,
 TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2022 17:10:44 -0000

Hi!

On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 05:55:20PM +0800, HAO CHEN GUI wrote:
>   This patch corrects return value of check_p9modulo_hw_available. It should
> return 0 when p9modulo is supported.

It would be harder to make such mistakes if it used exit() explicitly,
so that the reader is reminded the shell semantics are used here instead
of the C conventions.

> -		    return (r == 2);
> +		    return (r != 2);

so that then would be smth like

	if (r == 2)
		exit (0);
	else
		exit (1);

(which makes the exit code for failure explicit as well).

Terse is good.  Explicit is good as well :-)

(You don't have to make this change here of course, but keep it in mind
for the future :-) )


Segher