3 messages, 2 authors, 2012-09-15 · open the first message on its own page
From: Maciej W. Rozycki <hidden>
Date: 2012-09-08 19:28:31
On Tue, 4 Sep 2012, linux-mips@linux-mips.org wrote:
An empty default block is not allowed so add a ; as empty statement to make gcc happy.
A dummy "break" is the usual solution though. I don't think GCC ever complains if it sees it unreachable after a "return" -- in a sense it is just as unreachable as this null instruction is. Maciej
From: Ralf Baechle <hidden>
Date: 2012-09-10 17:12:04
On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 08:28:26PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
quoted
An empty default block is not allowed so add a ; as empty statement to make gcc happy.A dummy "break" is the usual solution though. I don't think GCC ever complains if it sees it unreachable after a "return" -- in a sense it is just as unreachable as this null instruction is.
I wasn't overly picky. Whatever gets the stuff to build correctly. I'm doing one final round of test builds over all -stable branches before dropping most of them like radioctive rocks. But more on that later. Ralf
From: Maciej W. Rozycki <hidden>
Date: 2012-09-15 22:42:30
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Ralf Baechle wrote:
quoted
A dummy "break" is the usual solution though. I don't think GCC ever complains if it sees it unreachable after a "return" -- in a sense it is just as unreachable as this null instruction is.I wasn't overly picky. Whatever gets the stuff to build correctly. I'm doing one final round of test builds over all -stable branches before dropping most of them like radioctive rocks. But more on that later.
Yeah, sure -- I just noted this is not breaking a new ground really. There was a time GCC used to support genuinely empty switch cases and that was removed at one point for better ISO C compliance. There was a rush fixing code all over the place at that point, including some "proper" GNU software such as I reckon bison, and the common approach taken was that I referred to. Maciej