On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Felipe Franciosi <fel...@paradoxo.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: >> >> FNV/I/IDIV10/0 covers all the possibilities of (method & 3), I would >> have to say that the compiler needs to be fixed. >> >> Or insert "default:" just before "case HASH_METHOD_0:" line? >> >> I dunno. > > Hmm... The "default:" would work, but is it really that bad to initialise a > local variable in this case? > > In any case, the compilation warning is annoying. Do you prefer the default > or the initialisation?
If I really had to choose between the two, adding a useless initialization would be the less harmful choice. Adding a meaningless "default:" robs another chance from the compilers to diagnose a future breakage we might add (namely, we may extend methods and forget to write a corresponding case arm for the new method value, which a smart compiler can and do diagnose as a switch that does not handle all the possible values. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
