On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Author: nico >>>> Date: Wed Oct 3 01:12:27 2012 >>>> New Revision: 165091 >>>> >>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=165091&view=rev >>>> Log: >>>> Replace a default: with an explicit list of cases. No functionality change. >>>> >>>> Modified: >>>> cfe/trunk/lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp >>>> >>>> Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp >>>> URL: >>>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp?rev=165091&r1=165090&r2=165091&view=diff >>>> ============================================================================== >>>> --- cfe/trunk/lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp (original) >>>> +++ cfe/trunk/lib/AST/MicrosoftMangle.cpp Wed Oct 3 01:12:27 2012 >>>> @@ -810,7 +810,12 @@ >>>> break; >>>> } >>>> /* fallthrough */ >>>> - } default: { >>>> + } >>>> + case TemplateArgument::Template: >>>> + case TemplateArgument::TemplateExpansion: >>>> + case TemplateArgument::Declaration: >>>> + case TemplateArgument::NullPtr: >>>> + case TemplateArgument::Pack: { >>>> // Issue a diagnostic. >>>> DiagnosticsEngine &Diags = Context.getDiags(); >>>> unsigned DiagID = Diags.getCustomDiagID(DiagnosticsEngine::Error, >>> >>> Now if another value is added to the list, it will silently fail; is >>> this acceptable? I would feel more comfortable if there was still a >>> default case that would be marked as unreachable. >> >> It won't silently fail, clang will warn that a enum case isn't handled. > > Clang will, but not all compilers will. MSVC doesn't warn on that > situation, for instance. Marking default with llvm_unreachable solves > that by ensuring there's no warning, and by complaining loudly if the > default is ever hit (so you can't ignore it).
Right, that way it's only caught at runtime, not compile time. Isn't that worse? >From what I can tell, exhaustive switches without defaults are very common in clang's codebase. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
