Hey Eric, On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Eric Sunshine <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:32 AM, Pranit Bauva <[email protected]> wrote: >> `--next-all` is meant to be used as a subcommand to support multiple >> "operation mode" though the current implementation does not contain any >> other subcommand along side with `--next-all` but further commits will >> include some more subcommands. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pranit Bauva <[email protected]> >> --- >> diff --git a/builtin/bisect--helper.c b/builtin/bisect--helper.c >> @@ -23,9 +23,14 @@ int cmd_bisect__helper(int argc, const char **argv, const >> char *prefix) >> - if (!next_all) >> + if (!cmdmode) >> usage_with_options(git_bisect_helper_usage, options); >> >> - /* next-all */ >> - return bisect_next_all(prefix, no_checkout); >> + switch (cmdmode) { >> + case NEXT_ALL: >> + return bisect_next_all(prefix, no_checkout); >> + default: >> + die("BUG: unknown subcommand '%d'", cmdmode); >> + } >> + return 0; > > What happens if you remove this useless 'return 0'? Does the (or some) > compiler incorrectly complain about it falling off the end of the > function without returning a value?
I tried removing it. It works fine with gcc and clang. You can see the build on travis-CI[1]. I am not sure of other compilers and also don't know a way to test it either. You could use my branch on github[2] if you want to test it on other compilers. I think its better to keep the return 0 if we aren't sure whether it would work on every compiler. [1]: https://travis-ci.org/pranitbauva1997/git/builds/131622175 [2]: https://github.com/pranitbauva1997/git/tree/return-try Regards, Pranit Bauva -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
