On Jan 16, 2009, at 12:02 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Jan 15, 2009, at 9:05 AM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 14, 2009, at 11:41 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 14, 2009, at 3:24 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
>>>>>> +/// @brief Determine the result of name lookup.
>>>>>> +Sema::LookupResult::LookupKind Sema::LookupResult::getKind()
>>>>>> const {
>>>>>> + switch (StoredKind) {
>>>>>> + case SingleDecl:
>>>>>> + return (reinterpret_cast<Decl *>(First) != 0)? Found :
>>>>>> NotFound;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + case OverloadedDeclFromIdResolver:
>>>>>> + case OverloadedDeclFromDeclContext:
>>>>>> + return FoundOverloaded;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + case AmbiguousLookup:
>>>>>> + return Ambiguous;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + // We can't get here, but GCC complains nonetheless.
>>>>>> + return Ambiguous;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe our standard way of handling this is by having a default
>>>>> case
>>>>> that asserts.
>>>>>
>>>>> switch (StoredKind) {
>>>>> default: assert(false && "Bad StoredKind");
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, I was getting bogus "function does not return a value"
>>>> warnings
>>>> from GCC when I've done this.
>>>
>>> Make sure the default case is at the start of the switch (Before
>>> the first case) not at the end.
>>
>>
>> My complaint about putting a default: in there still stands: it
>> suppresses a useful warning, where we've omitted a case, and turns
>> it into a run-time failure.
>
> Does GCC produce a warning for cases like:
>
> int foo() {
> switch (someenum) {
> case <all possible enums>:
> return 0;
> }
> // no return
> }
>
> About falling off the end of the function?
Yeah, it does.
- Doug
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
