On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 15:40:01 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 03/01/2018 03:29 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 03:12:39PM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> >> On 03/01/2018 02:15 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 14:08:29 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> >>>> Signed-off-by: --help <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
> >> problem with enums in switch() statements is we have to be 100% sure
> >> value fits into the enum. For instance:
> >>
> >> int x = VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_LAST + 1;
> >>
> >> switch ((virDomainDeviceType) x) {
> >> ...
> >> }
> >>
> >> is obviously problematic.
> >> And no, it's gcc 8.
> >
> > Well yes & no. GCC complained about cases where we fell-through case:
> > statements, due to us not including enough cases. This caused me to
> > notice the more general problem with us not handling enum values which
> > didn't correspond to named constants.
> >
> > So the general addition of case/default everywhere was not specifically
> > required by gcc 8. It is just something I chose todo to make us more
> > robust after realizing the implications of what gcc8 identified. The
> > warning flags we use to validate this have existed in ancient gcc versions.
>
> Looks like Peter has opinion on this too. So should I leave this item
> out or reword it?
Leave it in.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
