Hi, On 8/8/22 18:24, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 6:13 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 8/8/22 17:48, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 5:12 AM Luke D. Jones <luke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... > >>> To the switch-cases, please add a "default" case to each of them. >> >> The switch-cases are on an enum type, so adding a default is >> not necessary and adding one will actually loose the useful >> compiler warning about unhandled enum values. > > It's good if you can cover all enum values, which usually you can't. > enum according to the standard should be located in the type that is > enough to keep it and be compatible to a char. This means that the > code somewhere else may assign anything to enum (actually enum values > are type of int) and without default you can't see the difference here > and the compiler probably will be happy. That said, I doubt the > usefulness of such a warning. But it's up to you. I would prefer to not introduce a default label in this case; in the unexpected case that the value gets set out of the enum range then the switch-case will be a no-op and any added default would also be a no-op, so adding a default gains us nothing. Regards, Hans
