On 5/20/26 11:21, Peter Maydell wrote:
+ break; + } + g_assert_not_reached();...ah, I misread it. I think it would be clearer to have the float_expmax_normal case be "g_assert_not_reached()" rather than "break, and rely on the thing immediately next after the switch to be g_assert_not_reached()", because it more obviously says "this case can't occur".
Mm. I wrote the switch to let -Wall diagnose a missing enumerator, rather than
case float_expmax_normal:
default:
g_assert_not_reached();
r~
