Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 21:56:14 +0100 From: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> To: Ryan Libby <rlibby@freebsd.org>, Vladimir Kondratyev <wulf@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: 16079c7233be - main - hid: quiet -Wswitch Message-ID: <4a6b1780-b3df-29f7-6062-05c6e81231da@selasky.org> In-Reply-To: <CAHgpiFxxWvskdf9PyDkB4mhf6c=%2BBKGnhVMH1iTLB6su_tzqXg@mail.gmail.com> References: <202101110554.10B5sW2q070743@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <700dd42d-2d73-e54a-5fcc-b62ed31df80d@FreeBSD.org> <CAHgpiFxxWvskdf9PyDkB4mhf6c=%2BBKGnhVMH1iTLB6su_tzqXg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/11/21 8:05 PM, Ryan Libby wrote:
>> If these cases are never reachable, then I think '__assert_unreachable()'
>> is preferred to a plain break.
>
Hi,
> I'll have to let wulf and hselasky speak to that...
__assert_unreachable() is a bit fresh in my opinion. Basically it comes
down to a panic/assert when supposedly unreached cases are triggered.
commit c79cee71363ddaeb3c5ab7d3ccb87a11e1860d95
Author: Kyle Evans <kevans@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Wed May 13 18:07:37 2020 +0000
kernel: provide panicky version of __unreachable
I think:
default:
break;
Or when you need:
/* FALLTHROUGH */
is perfectly fine, even though I see other OS'es even macrofy
FALLTHROUGH as a built in compiler attribute.
Why do a) and not b) ?
Are there more things about switch cases we should do?
--HPS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4a6b1780-b3df-29f7-6062-05c6e81231da>