goto's while ugly do have a good usage in error unwinding. Most of the C tomes say this and I agree... I didn't look closely at this specific situation in the 91111 and all of it's context, but from the patch it appeared to be an error path.

Leaving with a return may be the cleaner thing to do here. Removing goto's is generally good, but I wouldn't go out of my way to recode in instances when they are the most efficient way to go.

Regards, Richard W.

-----Original Message----- From: Ladislav Michl [mailto:ladis@linux-mips.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 11:05 AM To: Woodruff, Richard Cc: u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] smc91111.c gcc-3.3.3 warning fix

On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 10:05:14AM -0500, Woodruff, Richard wrote:

...

Even toward the more trivial, I believe that Wolfgang or someone

pointed

...

out before that adding a ';' after the target goto label will also remove the warning.

Regards, Richard W.

Right, but I'm still considering such usage of goto ugly as hell.

ladis