From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5059 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2011 04:27:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 5047 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Mar 2011 04:27:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 04:27:11 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C80812BAD69; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 23:27:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id lGg38LAOJtM9; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 23:27:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F482BAD54; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 23:27:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E78791459AD; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 08:26:52 +0400 (RET) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 04:27:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Snyder Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [RFA] breakpoint.c, create_breakpoint, document that the case statement falls through. Message-ID: <20110303042652.GU30306@adacore.com> References: <4D6EE3D9.2040108@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D6EE3D9.2040108@vmware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00155.txt.bz2 > 2011-03-02 Michael Snyder > > * breakpoint.c (create_breakpoint): Document that case falls through. > > Index: breakpoint.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/breakpoint.c,v > retrieving revision 1.546 > diff -u -p -u -p -r1.546 breakpoint.c > --- breakpoint.c 1 Mar 2011 02:16:56 -0000 1.546 > +++ breakpoint.c 3 Mar 2011 00:38:01 -0000 > @@ -7843,6 +7843,7 @@ create_breakpoint (struct gdbarch *gdbar > default: > throw_exception (e); > } > + /* FALLTHROUGH */ > default: > if (!sals.nelts) > return 0; Just some thoughts: It's actually never going to fall through, is it? Can we use "break;" instead, even if we know it's never going to be reached? I think it would make it clearer by not suggesting something that isn't supposed to happen (the fall through). -- Joel