This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [c++] switch ( enum ) vs. default statment.

From: "Manuel López-Ibáñez" <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>
To: "Alexandre Oliva" <aoliva at redhat dot com>
Cc: "Paweł Sikora" <pluto at agmk dot net>, "Mark Mitchell" <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, ralf at linux-mips dot org
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 20:04:12 +0000
Subject: Re: [c++] switch ( enum ) vs. default statment.
References: <45BDC001.8000801@agmk.net> <6c33472e0701290306j66b7decfxfdc7910570ff3018@mail.gmail.com> <orodo7m8gt.fsf@free.oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>

On 06/02/07, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:

On Jan 29, 2007, "Manuel López-Ibáñez" <lopezibanez@gmail.com> wrote:

> * You can add a return 0 or an exit(1) at the end of the function or
> in a default label. Since in your case the code is unreachable, the
> optimiser may remove it or it will never be executed.

But this would generate additional code for no useful purpose.
See Ralf Baechle's posting with Subject: False 'noreturn' function
does return warnings.


GCC already generates additional code even if no explicit 'default' or
'return' is added. :-/ See the original PR c++/28236.

Cheers,

Manuel.

References:
- Re: [c++] switch ( enum ) vs. default statment.
  - From: Alexandre Oliva

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]