This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] breakpoint.c, create_breakpoint, document that the case statement falls through.
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Michael Snyder <msnyder at vmware dot com>
- Cc: "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 08:26:52 +0400
- Subject: Re: [RFA] breakpoint.c, create_breakpoint, document that the case statement falls through.
- References: <4D6EE3D9.2040108@vmware.com>
> 2011-03-02 Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
>
> * breakpoint.c (create_breakpoint): Document that case falls through.
>
> Index: breakpoint.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/breakpoint.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.546
> diff -u -p -u -p -r1.546 breakpoint.c
> --- breakpoint.c 1 Mar 2011 02:16:56 -0000 1.546
> +++ breakpoint.c 3 Mar 2011 00:38:01 -0000
> @@ -7843,6 +7843,7 @@ create_breakpoint (struct gdbarch *gdbar
> default:
> throw_exception (e);
> }
> + /* FALLTHROUGH */
> default:
> if (!sals.nelts)
> return 0;
Just some thoughts:
It's actually never going to fall through, is it? Can we use "break;"
instead, even if we know it's never going to be reached? I think
it would make it clearer by not suggesting something that isn't
supposed to happen (the fall through).
--
Joel