Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > 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) :)
I'll do that! > > Paolo > >> -- >> Marc-André Lureau -- Alex Bennée
