Coding standard: return succ on failure?

[Eric Christopher]

FWIW this drives me crazy as well.

-eric

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
> I have lobbied in the past for doing away with returning false on success. I
> continue to do so.
>
> There are parts of the Clang parser that do this consistently, but they are
> increasingly few and far between. I consistently see new code being written
> in both Clang and LLVM using false to mean failure and true to mean success,
> so I think we should just admit that this is the de-facto standard for new
> code going forward.
>
> That said, the last time I raised this question, Chris showed up to argue.
> ;]
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, dear all:
>>
>>     I find some of the code (e.g. LTOCodeGenerator) in llvm return false
>> on succ (we might as well
>> return 0 on succ as with many C code0); this is very confusing,
>> counter-intuitive, and error-prone.
>> Things are even worse, if this piece of code call other modules with
>> negated logic.
>>
>>     In what situation should we use this negated logic? Is it deprecated
>> now?  Can we toggle the logic
>> to the way we would normally take for granted?
>>
>> Thanks in advance!
>> A senior newbie (just brazenly promote myself)
>> _______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>