Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón <carenas@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> socklen_t sslen = sizeof(ss);
>> - int incoming = accept(pfd[i].fd, &ss.sa, &sslen);
>> + int incoming;
>> + int retry = 3;
>> +
>> + incoming = accept(pfd[i].fd, &ss.sa, &sslen);
>> if (incoming < 0) {
>> ...
>
> That seems unnecessarily restrictive just to minimize churn and leaves the
> deflaration of incoming strangely sitting in between two assignments, which
> while it doesn't trigger -Wdeclaration-after-statement seems to go against
> its spirit.
Hmph, I am not Phillip, but my take on it is that incoming and retry
are fairly closely related variables in this loop, and better
grouped together?
I also find it a bit ugly to hardcode "3" here like this, but
perhaps I am overthinking about it.
