RE: [Buddy-developers] confusing return value from bdd_delref

[John W. <jw...@st...>]

Hi Ondrej,

I think at one point back in version 1.0 there was a "bdd_break" and
"bdd_restart1".  I'm not sure of the provenance of returning BDD_BREAK in
this case, though.  I think it probably should be BDD_DEREF.  (Although if
you run into this error your code is broken anyway.)

I'll change it to return bdd_error(BDD_DEREF), if no one objects.

-John

-----Original Message-----
From: bud...@li...
[mailto:bud...@li...] On Behalf Of Ondrej
Lhotak
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 6:54 AM
To: bud...@li...
Subject: [Buddy-developers] confusing return value from bdd_delref

The bdd_delref function in kernel.c contains the following code:

   /* if the following line is present, fails there much earlier */ 
   if (!HASREF(root)) bdd_error(BDD_BREAK); /* distinctive */

If the node whose ref count is to be decremented already has a ref count
of 0, it returns BDD_BREAK. This is confusing, since BDD_BREAK is
supposed to indicate that the user interrupted BuDDy, not that an error
occurred. Would BDD_DEREF be more appropriate?

Ondrej



-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
Buddy-developers mailing list
Bud...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/buddy-developers