by codingkev on 2/9/22, 9:08 PM
by lapetitejort on 2/9/22, 9:21 PM
I spied a goto. Ctrl/Command+F spies 60 gotos. CS students: point to the Linux source code if your professor ever gives you grief about gotos.
by dennis_moore on 2/9/22, 7:46 PM
I find it mildly entertaining to casually browse random 17-year-old code lying at the heart of the Linux kernel and encounter gems like this.
by boricj on 2/9/22, 9:21 PM
As someone who has done some OS development and sysadmin work, I can relate to that quote. The 1st edition of Unix is over 50 years old and some of the legacy cruft that has accumulated since is so sedimented I swear it's going to turn into oil any minute now.
by dgellow on 2/9/22, 9:22 PM
/*
* Samma på svenska..
*/
by turdnagel on 2/9/22, 9:47 PM
A meta comment on the comments on this article: as one might expect post-"goto fail"[1] there are a lot of people saying "hey this should be refactored, no goto!" I thought that at first when looking at the code, given what I remember of the Apple SSL vulnerability, and how "goto" has a smell. But, as it turns out, there are sane reasons to use goto in systems programming, especially as a kind of cleanup / finally block. TIL.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7282005
by flerchin on 2/9/22, 9:24 PM
In a modern codebase, would there be tests for code like this? Is it too late for a plucky contributor to start adding them?
by flerchin on 2/9/22, 9:20 PM
I guess it's too scary to touch, but I feel like such code could be refactored to not use goto, amongst other issues.