On 20/09/2016 10:02, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 7:58 PM Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org
> <mailto:alex.ben...@linaro.org>> wrote:
> 
>     When enabling the sanitizer build it will complain about control
>     reaching a non-void function. Normally the compiler should detect that
>     there is only one possible exit given a static VNC_SERVER_FB_BYTES.
> 
>     As we should never get here I added an abort() rather than a default
>     return value.
> 
>     Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org
>     <mailto:alex.ben...@linaro.org>>
>     ---
>      ui/vnc-enc-tight.c | 2 ++
>      1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
>     diff --git a/ui/vnc-enc-tight.c b/ui/vnc-enc-tight.c
>     index 49df85e..9e4d254 100644
>     --- a/ui/vnc-enc-tight.c
>     +++ b/ui/vnc-enc-tight.c
>     @@ -710,6 +710,8 @@ static bool check_solid_tile(VncState *vs, int
>     x, int y, int w, int h,
>          switch (VNC_SERVER_FB_BYTES) {
>          case 4:
>              return check_solid_tile32(vs, x, y, w, h, color, samecolor);
>     +    default:
>     +        abort();
>          }
>      }
> 
> 
> 
> Reviewed-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com
> <mailto:marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>>
> 
> Looks fine. Would it make sense to use a
> G_STATIC_ASSERT(VNC_SERVER_FB_BYTES == 4) above instead?

Or QEMU_BUILD_BUG_ON(VNC_SERVER_FB_BYTES != 4) :)

Paolo

> -- 
> Marc-André Lureau

Reply via email to