From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sam <sah@softcardsystems.com>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] how to avoid a memset() optimization
In-Reply-To: <3afa.3e16dd11.67d1a@blake.inputplus.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0301061034040.19189-100000@athena>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Mon,  6 Jan 2003 10:42:07 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3bbf6ab2-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

or:

{
	int m=0;

	if(++m && (res1 = lock(A)))
	if(++m && (res2 = lock(B)))
	if(++m && (res3 = lock(C))) {
		foo();
		return success;
	}
	switch(m) {
	case 3:	 release(B);
	case 2:  release(A);
	default: return failure;
	}
}

you just need a marker to see how far you got. (I'm not even sure
what the context of this message is, but every time i see the goto
solution to this I have to say something). ;)

Cheers,

Sam

>
>         failed = 1;
>
>         if ((res1 = lock(A) == 0) {
>             goto releaseA;
>         }
>         if ((res2 = lock(B) == 0) {
>             goto releaseB;
>         }
>         if ((res3 = lock(C) == 0) {
>             goto releaseC;
>         }
>
>         foo(res1, res2, res3);
>         failed = 0;
>
>     releaseC:
>         release(C);
>     releaseB:
>         release(B);
>     releaseA:
>         release(A);
>
>         return failed;
>
> Cheers,
>
>