Coding standard: return succ on failure?

[Chad Rosier]

+1 :)

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20130802/c480e99e/attachment.html>