On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:32:02PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > The original reason for the expletive below has been lost > in the mists of time Oh, no it hasn't. That's a switch statement using enums for the cases and so if you don't define every enum value in the switch statement gcc throws warnings. IOWs, the switch statement has to either define them all or contain a "default" case, either of which *does not need to exist* because other code guarantees that the value of cur->bc_btnum is within the valid range. So, we have to put an invalid value into the switch statement to make gcc shut the fuck up, and the ASSERT(0) is there to indicate that "this should never, ever happen". > libxfs, and this leads static analysis checkers to believe that > XFS_BTNUM_MAX is possible, and that we might overflow an array > later when using it as an index. > > We can shut this up and mark it as truly impossible with abort(). Random differences between kernel and user code to keep static analysis checkers happy is not a good road to follow, because it will just cause patch failures and people wondering "why is this randomly different to the kernel code?". So, no, I don't really like this approach. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
