>>> On 16.10.15 at 10:24, <he.c...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 09:47:37AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >> Ah, yes, in cases like this it should always be followed by return >> (or whatever else is suitable). Sorry for not having spotted this >> during review. >> > Sorry for this bug. Is it proper to fix this bug by just adding a > return after ASSERT_UNREACHABLE? Or do some changes in > ASSERT_UNREACHABLE?
As said (still visible above) you should return. You should definitely not modify ASSERT_UNREACHABLE(), since what to do after it depends on the circumstances. (We might consider requiring that action to be the macro's sole argument, but I guess there may be cases where that being blank is valid, and then would pointlessly require some dummy argument to be passed. But certainly nothing for you to worry about here.) Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
