From owner-freebsd-bugs  Fri May  9 09:11:52 1997
Return-Path: <owner-bugs>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA12740
          for bugs-outgoing; Fri, 9 May 1997 09:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from george.lbl.gov (george-2.lbl.gov [131.243.2.12])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA12732;
          Fri, 9 May 1997 09:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (jin@localhost) by george.lbl.gov (8.6.10/8.6.5) id JAA28108; Fri, 9 May 1997 09:11:41 -0700
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 09:11:41 -0700
From: "Jin Guojun[ITG]" <jin@george.lbl.gov>
Message-Id: <199705091611.JAA28108@george.lbl.gov>
To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG, joerg@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: gnu/3554
Sender: owner-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Synopsis: cc failed on deafult <= default
>
> That's actually legal C code.

Theoretically, it is correct; but it is awkward. This kind program bug is
very hard to find out without checking every word of the code. cc does NOT
provide any information/warrning on it, then how do you know the default
has been a typo? In the huge code program, where do you look for the bug?

The cc could be a little smart to do this:

	if "default:" is found in a switch block, then no further check.
	otherwise, if no "default:" is in a switch block, but some similar
	label is found, which may be a type, gives a warning:

warning: default is not defined in this switch block, but a similar lable
	was found. This may be a typo.

Does this look better?

-Jin