From owner-freebsd-bugs  Fri May  9 20:27:23 1997
Return-Path: <owner-bugs>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA13880
          for bugs-outgoing; Fri, 9 May 1997 20:27:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from labs.usn.blaze.net.au (labs.usn.blaze.net.au [203.17.53.30])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA13875
          for <freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org>; Fri, 9 May 1997 20:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from labs.usn.blaze.net.au (local [127.0.0.1])
	by labs.usn.blaze.net.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA05341;
	Sat, 10 May 1997 13:27:01 +1000 (EST)
Message-Id: <199705100327.NAA05341@labs.usn.blaze.net.au>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0gamma 1/27/96
To: "Jin Guojun[ITG]" <jin@george.lbl.gov>
Cc: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: gnu/3554 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 09 May 1997 09:11:41 MST."
             <199705091611.JAA28108@george.lbl.gov> 
X-Face: (W@z~5kg?"+5?!2kHP)+l369.~a@oTl^8l87|/s8"EH?Uk~P<Wc^}f75I|456ez/M
 E3OlD+ZL@c>#N+Ec~Z&@;'LL!;3?y<m[SK`'\R~Oe|(t-x+U@a%p!1_fZP0!Tb^?'%M1|"n9
 Fl{Ao~%X[Ec|bMlaN-3#x.e')nZ2/HHYSa2D[:bk#pj0(}\HpKeE}/GqUb3-1}lnUm6Et4?(
 gB5[*Z3Mu6o{Og.EJ))beY9oq9wcVU7_n}:I2JvCaa[5=&PI;x__["DL`uI}=s>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 13:27:00 +1000
From: David Nugent <davidn@labs.usn.blaze.net.au>
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.

No, actually, its very easy. Use -Wall, and you get warnings about
unused labels.


>  cc does NOT provide any information/warrning on it

Err, look again. :) Not to mention that 1,000 other typos that can
otherwise go unnoticed when not using -Wall. Everyone develops
code using -Wall, don't they? If not, why not? I don't know how
many times -Wall has caught things like this in one way or another
for me.


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

Gack. "may be"? Issue warnings for perfectly valid code because it
*looks* like something else?

No thanks. Compilers take long enough to do things already without
asking it to second-guess my every word.


Regards,
David