On 08/07/2015 11:47 PM, Christopher Li wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Tony Camuso <tcamuso@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tcamuso@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > It was mentioned to me that the new prevailing wisdom is to "Prefer > compile time errors to runtime errors", such that each enum'd value > of a switch variable should be explicitly handled. Most of the code I saw, when using fail through, has comment emphasizing the fall through behavior. > Or, if you prefer, I can resubmit the original patch with a linefeed after > the "default:" for good form. Either way, I believe the compiler optimize > them the same. Yes, I prefer the patch without have to list every enum member just to skip them. > The whole reason for explicitly listing the existing enum members is so > that new cases for which "break" may not be the correct solution can be > easily identified at compile time. I can see that. However it only works for the switch statement that does not have the default handler already. In the field a lot of the switch statements already have default handler, depending on the compiler to give warning is not that reliable. Unless we ban the default handler all together. Chris
Thanks Chris, I will resubmit the original patch with your recommendation for a newline after the default: case. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
