11.05.2017, 11:18, "Osztrogonác Csaba" <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > On 2017.05.11. 0:32, Andy Estes wrote: >>> On May 10, 2017, at 3:17 PM, Michael Catanzaro <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> One annoying thing is that I've seen clang complaining about that >>>> return statement being an unreachable statement while gcc doesn't :(. >>>> So we probably shouldn't have return statement, not to mention that 0 >>>> may not be a valid enum value. >>> >>> In that case, I think I'll go with RELEASE_ASSERT_NOT_REACHED() for now... >>> since otherwise GCC is going to complain in release builds if there is no >>> return statement. (Won't clang complain about that too?) >> >> Clang won’t complain if the switch is exhaustive and all cases return. >> >> Andy > > It isn't possible to check if all cases return if there is > no default label in the switch, see these comments for details: > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150842#c3
If you create enum value that is outside of range of defined enum members, like 2 in your example, it's already unspecified behavior. In case of enum with holes it may be correct, but I don't think we have many of those. > > GCC's warning is correct and clang won't complain, > but undefined behaviour can happen in runtime. > > br, > Ossy > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev -- Regards, Konstantin _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
