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~

Reply via email to