Re: [PATCH] linux-record: Squash cases with identical handling

[Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com>]

Andreas Arnez <arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> On Wed, Apr 13 2016, Yao Qi wrote:
>
>> I thought about squashing them too, but the reason I didn't do that is
>> these enum gdb_syscall in the switch block are listed in the numeric
>> order, so that it is quite easy to find whether a syscall is supported,
>> or add a new syscall.
>
> Ah, interesting point.  If we want to stick to this rule, maybe this
> should be stated in a comment above the switch statement?
>

It is not my intention to stick to this rule.

> Or should we aim at getting GDB '-Wswitch'-clean?  (Probably a good idea

-Wswitch is enabled by -Wall, so gdb is '-Wswitch'-clean already.

> anyhow...)  Then we could replace the default label by explicit case
> labels for all unsupported syscalls and rely on GCC to catch any further
> missing case labels.  Once that's done, the order of case labels
> wouldn't matter, IMO.
>

That will be overkill compared with your patch, so ...

>> but, I don't like the fall-through.
>
> Yeah, it's kind of ugly.  I can certainly drop this change from the
> patch if that helps.
>

... your patch except the fall-through is good to me.

-- 
Yao (齐尧)