On Fri, 10 May 2013 23:58:23 +0200, =?utf-8?Q?J=C3=A9r=C3=A9mie_Courr=C3=A8ges- Anglas?= wrote:
> > + switch (numbering_properties[section].type) { > > + case number_all: > > + /* > > + * Doing this for number_all only is disputable, but > > + * the standard expresses an explicit dependency on > > + * `-b a' etc. > > + */ > > + if (buffer[0] == '\n' && ++adjblank < nblank) > > + donumber = 0; > > + else > > + donumber = 1, adjblank = 0; > > + break; > > + case number_nonempty: > > + donumber = (buffer[0] != '\n'); > > + break; > > + case number_none: > > + donumber = 0; > > + break; > > + case number_regex: > > + donumber = > > + (regexec(&numbering_properties[section].expr, > > + buffer, 0, NULL, 0) == 0); > > + break; > > What about a default case here, to make WARNINGS=Yes shut up? I think that would be a mistake. All the possible enum values are already listed in the switch. Omitting a default: label allows the compiler to warn when a new value is added to the enum that is not handled by the switch. - todd