On 20/09/2016 10:02, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > Hi > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 7:58 PM Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org > <mailto:alex.ben...@linaro.org>> wrote: > > When enabling the sanitizer build it will complain about control > reaching a non-void function. Normally the compiler should detect that > there is only one possible exit given a static VNC_SERVER_FB_BYTES. > > As we should never get here I added an abort() rather than a default > return value. > > Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org > <mailto:alex.ben...@linaro.org>> > --- > ui/vnc-enc-tight.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/ui/vnc-enc-tight.c b/ui/vnc-enc-tight.c > index 49df85e..9e4d254 100644 > --- a/ui/vnc-enc-tight.c > +++ b/ui/vnc-enc-tight.c > @@ -710,6 +710,8 @@ static bool check_solid_tile(VncState *vs, int > x, int y, int w, int h, > switch (VNC_SERVER_FB_BYTES) { > case 4: > return check_solid_tile32(vs, x, y, w, h, color, samecolor); > + default: > + abort(); > } > } > > > > Reviewed-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com > <mailto:marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>> > > Looks fine. Would it make sense to use a > G_STATIC_ASSERT(VNC_SERVER_FB_BYTES == 4) above instead?
Or QEMU_BUILD_BUG_ON(VNC_SERVER_FB_BYTES != 4) :) Paolo > -- > Marc-André Lureau
