Hey Eric,
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:32 AM, Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> `--next-all` is meant to be used as a subcommand to support multiple
>> "operation mode" though the current implementation does not contain any
>> other subcommand along side with `--next-all` but further commits will
>> include some more subcommands.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/builtin/bisect--helper.c b/builtin/bisect--helper.c
>> @@ -23,9 +23,14 @@ int cmd_bisect__helper(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>> - if (!next_all)
>> + if (!cmdmode)
>> usage_with_options(git_bisect_helper_usage, options);
>>
>> - /* next-all */
>> - return bisect_next_all(prefix, no_checkout);
>> + switch (cmdmode) {
>> + case NEXT_ALL:
>> + return bisect_next_all(prefix, no_checkout);
>> + default:
>> + die("BUG: unknown subcommand '%d'", cmdmode);
>> + }
>> + return 0;
>
> What happens if you remove this useless 'return 0'? Does the (or some)
> compiler incorrectly complain about it falling off the end of the
> function without returning a value?
I tried removing it. It works fine with gcc and clang. You can see the
build on travis-CI[1]. I am not sure of other compilers and also don't
know a way to test it either. You could use my branch on github[2] if
you want to test it on other compilers. I think its better to keep the
return 0 if we aren't sure whether it would work on every compiler.
[1]: https://travis-ci.org/pranitbauva1997/git/builds/131622175
[2]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git/tree/return-try
Regards,
Pranit Bauva
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html