I often see Linux code with something like this
if (condition1)
continue;
.....
Now that doesn't make much sense, if condition1 it will continue to next line of code. If not condition1 it still fall through to next line of code. it doesn't have an alternative place to go if condition1 is not met.
any ideas?
The continue statement does not mean to continue on the next line. It causes the remaining portion of the enclosing for, while or do-while loop body to be skipped.
Refer to cppreference (or many other places) for a description of the keyword.
continue is a feature of the C programming language (as well as many languages including C++, Java, etc). It is not specific to Linux.
I've often thought the name is counter-intuitive. In perl, even though much of the syntax is C-like, the keyword next is used to skip to the next loop iteration, which seems more intuitive to me.
Related
This question already has answers here:
Two semicolons inside a for-loop parentheses
(4 answers)
Endless loop in C/C++ [closed]
(12 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
I was searching for an explanation for the "double semicolon" in the code:
for(;;){}
Original question.
I do not have enough reputation to even leave a comment so I need to create a new question.
My question is,
What does an "extra" semicolon means. Is this "double semicolon" or "extra semicolon" used for "something else"?
The question comes from a person with no knowledge of programing, just powered on my first arduino kit and feel like a child when LED blinked.
But it is the reality that the questions, like general occurence, are radiating the actual knowledge of the person asking the question.
And beyond "personal preference" in using while(1) or for(;;) is it helpful in using for(;;) where you do not have enough room for the code itself?
I have updated the question.
Thank you for the quick explanation. You opened my eyes with the idea of not using anything in for loop = ). From basic high school knowledge I am aware of for loop so thank you for that.
So for(;;) returns TRUE "by default"?
And my last line about the size of the code?
Or it is compiled and using for or while actually does not affect the compiled code size?
A for loop is often written
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
...
}
Before the first semicolon, there is code that is run once, before the loop starts. By omitting this, you just have nothing happen before the loop starts.
Between the semicolons, there is the condition that is checked after every loop, and the for loop end if this evaluates to false. By omitting this, you have no check, and it always continues.
After the second semicolon is code that is run after every cycle, before that condition is evaluated. Omitting this just runs additional code at that time.
The semicolons are always there, there is nothing special about the face that they are adjacent. You could replace that with
for ( ; ; )
and have the same effect.
While for (;;) itself does not return true (It doesn't return anything), the second field in the parentheses of the for always causes the loop to continue if it is empty. There's no reason for this other than that someone thought it would be convenient. See https://stackoverflow.com/a/13147054/5567382. It states that an empty condition is always replaced by a non-zero constant, which is the case where the loop continues.
As for size and efficiency, it may vary depending on the compiler, but I don't see any reason that one would be more efficient than the other, though it's really up to the compiler. It could be that a compiler would allow the program to evaluate as non-zero a constant in the condition of a while loop, but recognise an empty for loop condition and skip comparison, though I would expect the compiler to optimize the while loop better. (A long way of saying that I don't know, but it depends on a lot.)
Are there any libraries out there that I can pass my .c files through and will count the visible number of, of example, "if" statements?
We don't have to worry about "if" statement in other files called by the current file, just count of the current file.
I can do a simple grep or regex but wanted to check if there is something better (but still simple)
If you want to be sure it's done right, I'd probably make use of clang and walk the ast. A URL to get you started:
http://clang.llvm.org/docs/IntroductionToTheClangAST.html
First off, there is no way to use regular expressions or grep to give you the correct answer you are looking for. There are lots of ways that you would find those strings, but they could be buried in any amount of escape characters, quotations, comments, etc.
As some commenters have stated, you will need to use a parser/lexer that understands the C language. You want something simple, you said, so you won't be writing this yourself :)
This seems like it might be usable for you:
http://wiki.tcl.tk/3891
From the page:
lexes a string containing C source into a list of tokens
That will probably get you what you want, but even then it's not going to be trivial.
What everyone has said so far is correct; it seems a lot easier to just grep the shit out of your file. The performance hit of this is neglagible compared to the alternative which is to go get the gcc source code (or whichever compiler you're using), and then go through the parsing code and hook in what you want to do while it parses the syntax tree. This seems like a pain in the ass, especially when all you're worried about is the conditional statements. If you actually care about the branches, you could actually just take a look at the object code and count the number of if statements in the assembly, which would correctly tell you the number of branches (rather than just relying on how many times you typed a conditional, which will not translate exactly to the branching of the program).
I am reading some C text at the address https://cs.senecac.on.ca/~btp100/pages/content/const.html.
In the section "STRUCTURED PROGRAMMING", the author mentioned: "Structured programs are understandable, testable and readily modifiable. They consist of simple constructs, each of which has one entry point and one exit point."
I understood what is a structured program, but I am not really understanding the idea "one entry point and one exit point". What if we do not have such stuff?
Can anyone elaborate on that, please?
Look at the Flags example close to the bottom and Avoiding Jumps below that: https://cs.senecac.on.ca/~btp100/pages/content/const.html#fla
What they're basically trying to say here is that you could have some sort of loop (for/while/whatever) where you could use something like break to exit a loop prematurely, rather than waiting on the actual condition that you're checking in the loop to become false and have the loop exit normally. In this case you would have two exit points.
They suggest the use of a flag variable added to the loop's condition to have a single exit point, makes sense.
The use of continue is another example where you can "break structure." You could use continue to stop the current iteration of the loop and reenter it, where in this case you would have multiple entry points.
Things like that can make code a lot harder to read and be able to follow the flow, even though sometimes it may seem necessary to do so.
Generally, it is good practice to avoid GOTOs. Keeping that in mind I've been having a debate with a coworker over this topic.
Consider the following code:
Line:
while( <> ) {
next Line if (insert logic);
}
Does using a loop label count as a goto?
Here is what perlsyn in perldoc has to say:
Here's how a C programmer might code up a particular algorithm in Perl:
for (my $i = 0; $i < #ary1; $i++) {
for (my $j = 0; $j < #ary2; $j++) {
if ($ary1[$i] > $ary2[$j]) {
last; # can't go to outer :-(
}
$ary1[$i] += $ary2[$j];
}
# this is where that last takes me
}
Whereas here's how a Perl programmer more comfortable with the idiom might do it:
OUTER: for my $wid (#ary1) {
INNER: for my $jet (#ary2) {
next OUTER if $wid > $jet;
$wid += $jet;
}
}
My take on this is no because you are explicitly telling a loop to short circuit and advance however my coworker disagrees, says that it is just a fancy GOTO and should be avoided. I'm looking for either a compelling argument or documentation that explains why this is or is not a GOTO. I'll also accept an explanation for why this is or is not considered good practice in perl.
Dijkstras intent was never that anything resembling goto is to be considered harmful. It was that the structure of code where gotos are used as the main construct for almost any kind of program flow change will result in what we today call spaghetti code.
You should read the original article and keep in mind that it was written in 1968 when labeled jumps was the main flow control constructs in just about all programming languages.
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd02xx/EWD215.PDF
The danger of GOTO labels is that they create spaghetti code and make the logic unreadable. Neither of those will happen in this case. There is a lot of validity in using GOTO statements, much of the defense coming from Donald Knuth [article].
Delving into the differences between your C and Perl example... If you consider what is happening at the assembly level with your C programs, it all compiles down to GOTOs anyway. And if you've done any MIPS or other assembly programming, then you've seen that most of those languages don't have any looping constructs, only conditional and unconditional branches.
In the end it comes down to readability and understandability. Both of which are helped an enormous amount by being consistent. If your company has a style guide, follow that, otherwise following the perl style guide sounds like a good idea to me. That way when other perl developers join your team in the future, they'll be able to hit the ground running and be comfortable with your code base.
Who cares whether it counts as goto as long as it makes the code easier to understand? Using goto can often be MORE readable than having a bunch of extra tests in if() and loop conditions.
IMO, your code comparison is unfair. The goal is readable code.
To be fair, you should compare an idiomatic Perl nested loop with labels against one without them. The C style for and blocked if statement add noise that make it impossible to compare the approaches.
Labels:
OUTER: for my $wid (#ary1) {
INNER: for my $jet (#ary2) {
next OUTER if $wid > $jet;
$wid += $jet;
}
}
Without labels:
for my $wid (#ary1) {
for my $jet (#ary2) {
last if $wid > $jet;
$wid += $jet;
}
}
I prefer the labeled version because it is explicit about the effect of the condition $wid > $jet. Without labels you need to remember that last operates on the inner loop and that when the inner loop is done, we move to the next item in the outer loop. This isn't exactly rocket-science, but it is real, demonstrable, cognitive overhead. Used correctly, labels make the code more readable.
Update:
stocherilac asked what happens if you have code after the nested loop. It depends on whether you want to skip it based on the inner conditional or always execute it.
If you want to skip the code in the outer loop, the labeled code works as desired.
If you want to be sure it is executed every time, you can use a continue block.
OUTER: for my $wid (#ary1) {
INNER: for my $jet (#ary2) {
next OUTER if $wid > $jet;
$wid += $jet;
}
}
continue {
# This code will execute when next OUTER is called.
}
I think the distinction is somewhat fuzzy, but here's what the goto perldoc states about the (frowned upon) goto statement:
The goto-LABEL form finds the statement labeled with LABEL and resumes execution there.
...
The author of Perl has never felt the need to use this form of goto (in Perl, that is; C is another matter). (The difference is that C does not offer named loops combined with loop control. Perl does, and this replaces most structured uses of goto in other languages.)
The perlsyn perldoc, however, says this:
The while statement executes the block as long as the expression is true. The until statement executes the block as long as the expression is false. The LABEL is optional, and if present, consists of an identifier followed by a colon. The LABEL identifies the loop for the loop control statements next, last, and redo. If the LABEL is omitted, the loop control statement refers to the innermost enclosing loop. This may include dynamically looking back your call-stack at run time to find the LABEL. Such desperate behavior triggers a warning if you use the use warnings pragma or the -w flag.
The desperate behaviour bit doesn't look too good to me, but I may be misinterpreting its meaning.
The Learning Perl book (5th edition, page 162) has this to say:
When you need to work with a loop block that's not the innermost one, use a label.
...
Notice that the label names the entire block; it's not marking a target point in the code. [This isn't goto after all.]
Does that help clear things up? Probably not... :-)
Labeled loop jumps in Perl are GOTOs as much as C's break and continue are.
I would answer it like this, and I'm not sure if this is sufficiently different from what others have said:
Because you can only only move inside of the current scope, or to a parent scope, they're much less dangerous than what is typically implied by goto, observe:
if (1) {
goto BAR;
die 'bar'
}
BAR:
This should work obviously, but this won't (can't move in this direction).
if (0) {
BAR:
die 'bar'
}
goto BAR;
Many use cases of labels differ from goto in that they're just more explicit variants of core flow control. To make a statement that they're categorically worse would be to imply that:
LOOP: while (1) {
next LOOP if /foo;
}
is somehow worse than
while (1) {
next if /foo/;
}
which is simply illogical if you exclude style. But, speaking of style, the latter variant is much easier to read - and it does stop you from having to look up for the properly named label. The reader knows more with next (that you're restarting the loop in the current scope), and that is better.
Let's look at another example
while (1) {
while (1) {
last;
}
stuff;
}
-vs-
FOO: while (1) {
BAR: while (1) {
next FOO;
}
stuff;
}
In the latter example here next FOO, skips stuff -- you might desire this, but it is bad idea. It implies that the programmer has read a parent scope to completion which is an assumption probably better avoided. In summary, label isn't as bad as goto and sometimes they can simplify code; but, in most cases they should be avoided. I usually rewrite loops without labels when I encounter them on CPAN.
gotos are bad because they create hard to understand code--particularly, what is often called "Spaghetti Code". What's hard to understand about next Line...??
You can call it a loop "name", and it really is something to help emphasize loop boundaries. You're not jumping into an arbitrary point in relation to the loop; you're going back to the top of a loop.
Sadly enough, if it is a group or house standard, there might be nothing to convince the group that it's not a goto. I had a manager who absolutely insisted that a ternary operator made things hard to read, and preferred I use if-blocks for everything. I had a pretty good argument anything can be done in the clauses of an if-else, but that a ternary made it explicit that you were looking for a particular value. No sale.
This kind of jump is a disciplined used of a goto-like statement. So it's certainly less harmful than undisciplined use of goto. (As kasperjj wrote, "Dijkstras intent was never that anything resembling goto is to be considered harmful.")
IMO, this Perl kind of jump is even better design than C's "break" and "continue", because it makes clear what loop we break or continue, and it makes it more solid in the face of code changes. (Besides, it also allows to break or continue an outer loop.)
There are pundits who don't like break/continue and the like, but at some point there is a tradeoff to make between rules of thumb and readability, and a well-chosen break/continue or even goto may become more readable than "politically correct" code.
break/last and continue/next ARE gotos. I don't understand why anyone would go to such lengths to avoid a keyword yet use a different keyword that does the same thing...
4.4.4. Loop Control
We mentioned that you can put a LABEL on a loop to give it a name. The loop's LABEL identifies the loop for the loop-control operators next, last, and redo. The LABEL names the loop as a whole, not just the top of the loop. Hence, a loop-control operator referring to the loop doesn't actually "go to" the loop label itself. As far as the computer is concerned, the label could just as easily have been placed at the end of the loop. But people like things labeled at the top, for some reason.
Programming Perl
What advantage, if any, is provided by formatting C code as follows:
while(lock_file(lockdir)==0)
{
count++;
if(count==20)
{
fprintf(stderr,"Can't lock dir %s\n",lockdir);
exit(1);
}
sleep(3);
}
if(rmdir(serverdir)!=0)
{
switch(errno)
{
case EEXIST:
fprintf(stderr,"Server dir %s not empty\n",serverdir);
break;
default:
fprintf(stderr,"Can't delete dir %s\n",serverdir);
}
exit(1);
}
unlock_file(lockdir);
versus something more typical such as
while(lock_file(lockdir)==0) {
count++;
if(count==20) {
fprintf(stderr,"Can't lock dir %s\n",lockdir);
exit(1);
}
sleep(3);
}
if(rmdir(serverdir)!=0) {
switch(errno) {
case EEXIST:
fprintf(stderr,"Server dir %s not empty\n",serverdir);
break;
default:
fprintf(stderr,"Can't delete dir %s\n",serverdir);
}
exit(1);
}
unlock_file(lockdir);
I just find the top version difficult to read and to get the indenting level correct for statements outside of a long block, especially for longs blocks containing several nested blocks.
Only advantage I can see is just to be different and leave your fingerprints on code that you've written.
I notice vim formatting would have to be hand-rolled to handle the top case.
The top example is know as "Whitesmiths style". Wikipedia's entry on Indent Styles explains several styles along with their advantages and disadvantages.
The indentation you're seeing is Whitesmiths style. It's described in the first edition of Code Complete as "begin-end Block Boundaries". The basic argument for this style is that in languages like C (and Pascal) an if governs either a single statement or a block. Thus the whole block, not just its contents should be shown subordinate to the if-statement by being indented consistently.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX if (test)
XXXXXXXXXXXX one_thing();
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX if (test)
X {
XXXXX one_thing();
XXXXX another_thing();
X }
Back when I first read this book (in the 90s) I found the argument for "begin-end Block Boundaries" to be convincing, though I didn't like it much when I put it into practice (in Pascal). I like it even less in C and find it confusing to read. I end up using what Steve McConnel calls "Emulating Pure Blocks" (Sun's Java Style, which is almost K&R).
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX X if (test) {
XXXXXX one_thing();
XXXXXX another_thing();
X }
This is the most common style used to program in Java (which is what I do all day). It's also most similar to my previous language which was a "pure block" language, requiring no "emulation". There are no single-statement bodies, blocks are inherent in the control structure syntax.
IF test THEN
oneThing;
anotherThing
END
Nothing. Indentation and other coding standards are a matter of preference.
Personal Preference I would have thought? I guess it has the code block in one vertical line so possibly easier to work out at a glance? Personally I prefer the brace to start directly under the previous line
It looks pretty standard to me. The only personal change I'd make is aligning the curly-braces with the start of the previous line, rather than the start of the next line, but that's just a personal choice.
Anyway, the style of formatting you're looking at there is a standard one for C and C++, and is used because it makes the code easier to read, and in particular by looking at the level of indentation you can tell where you are with nested loops, conditionals, etc. E.g.:
if (x == 0)
{
if (y == 2)
{
if (z == 3)
{
do_something (x);
}
}
}
OK in that example it's pretty easy to see what's happening, but if you put a lot of code inside those if statements, it can sometimes be hard to tell where you are without consistent indentation.
In your example, have a look at the position of the exit(1) statement -- if it weren't indented like that, it would be hard to tell where this was. As it is, you can tell it's at the end of that big if statement.
Code formatting is personal taste. As long as it is easy to read, it would pay for maintenance!
By following some formatting and commenting standards, first of all you show your respect to other people that will read and edit code written by you. If you don't accept rules and write somehow esoteric code the most probable result is that you will not be able communicate with other people (programmers) effectively. Code format is personal choice if software is written only by you and for you and nobody is expected to read it, but how many modern software is written only by one person ?
The "advantage" of Whitesmiths style (as the top one in your example is called) is that it mirrors the actual logical structure of the code:
indent if there is a logical dependency
place corresponding brackets on the same column so they are easy to find
opening and closing of a context (which may open/close a stack frame etc) are visible, not hidden
So, less if/else errors, loops gone wrong, and catches at the wrong level, and overall logical consistency.
But as benefactual wrote: within certain rational limits, formatting is a matter of personal preference.
Its just another style--people code how they like to code, and that is one accepted style (though not my preferred). I don't think it has much of a disadvantage or advantage over the more common style in which brackets are not indented but the code within them is. Perhaps one could justify it by saying that it more clearly delimits code blocks.
In order for this format to have "advantage", we really need some equivalent C code in another format to compare to!
Where I work, this indentation scheme is used in order to facilitate a home-grown folding editor mechanism.
Thus, I see nothing fundamentally wrong with this format - within certain rational limits, formatting is a matter of personal preference.