This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
[fixme] Missing "break" in switch -- intentional fall through?
- From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at vmware dot com>
- To: "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>, Paul Hilfinger <hilfingr at CS dot Berkeley dot edu>
- Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 12:22:09 -0800
- Subject: [fixme] Missing "break" in switch -- intentional fall through?
This switch statement lacks any break statements, and in one case it
makes a difference. I can't decide the intent, so I'd like to toss it
to you Ada guys.
IMO, an intentional fall through should always have a comment.
Index: ada-lang.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/ada-lang.c,v
retrieving revision 1.285
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.285 ada-lang.c
--- ada-lang.c 17 Feb 2011 06:42:56 -0000 1.285
+++ ada-lang.c 26 Feb 2011 20:18:32 -0000
@@ -4762,6 +4762,7 @@ compare_names (const char *string1, cons
else
return -1;
}
+ /* FIXME -- fall through??? */
default:
if (*string2 == '(')
return strcmp_iw_ordered (string1, string2);