int toInt(const Number num)
{
switch(num)
{
case Zero:
return 0;
case One:
return 1;
case Two:
default:
return 2;
}
}
This approach at least returns something without causing much code
expansion. If you want to trust your code, this approach will silence
the warnings without costing much at run-time.
I guess that the compiler writers have a very difficult choice in these
kind of warnings between under and over warning. Their choice may not
work well for you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Frans Englich [mailto:frans.englich@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 3:01 PM
To: John Love-Jensen
Cc: Steven L. Zook; MSX to GCC
Subject: Re: False positive warning: missing return statement and switch
statements
On Tuesday 15 November 2005 22:47, John Love-Jensen wrote:
> Hi Frans,
>
> > Obviously, I am looking at this the wrong way -- please explain.
>
> Improve your code safety using C++ capabilities:
>
> int toInt(const Number num)
> {
> switch(num)
> {
> case Zero:
> return 0;
> case One:
> return 1;
> case Two:
> return 2;
> default:
> throw std::range_error("toInt(): enum Number out of range");
> }
> }
>
> Then the warning goes away, and your code is better.
Yupp, that's what I currently do, in my case it unfortunately becomes a
significant amount of code for dummy tests(because I know I'm behaving).
Cheers,
Frans
