Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 17:58, David Daney[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Michael Buesch wrote:

quoted

On Friday 11 September 2009 01:56:42 David Daney wrote:

quoted

+/* Unreachable code */
+#ifndef unreachable
+# define unreachable() do { for (;;) ; } while (0)
+#endif

# define unreachable() do { } while (1)

? :)

Clearly I was not thinking clearly when I wrote that part.  RTH noted the
same thing.  I will fix it.

However, people are so used to seeing the `do { } while (0)' idiom,
that they might miss
there's a `1' here, not a `0'.

So perhaps it's better to use plain `for (;;)' for infinite loops?

I don't think so.  The only valid token that can follow 'do { } while 
(1)' is ';', any statement may follow 'for (;;)', so there is a greater 
possibility to silently screw things up with the for(;;) form.

David Daney