Paul Eggert wrote:
> For situations like these I prefer "default: unreachable ();" to
> "default: abort ();", as "unreachable ()" lets the builder decide
> whether to abort or optimize; but it's no big deal.
If there's only the slightest chance of that 'default:' case being
reached (possibly thr
On 2/4/25 02:57, Bruno Haible wrote:
It's a maintainability issue: Assume that in the future the enum definition
gets extended. When the programmer had omitted the 'default: break;'
clause, they are now *relying* on gcc's -Wswitch-enum to tell them when to
adapt the code. Whereas with the 'defau
> 2025-02-03 Bruno Haible
>
> gnulib-tool: Apply libgnu.{,l}a specific CFLAGS to all its object files.
Oops, this change broke the --create-testdir option.
How to reproduce:
$ ./gnulib-tool --create-testdir --dir=../testdir1 --with-c++-tests
--without-privileged-tests --single-configur
Paul Eggert wrote:
> That being said, I'll try to keep in mind that you prefer "default:
> break;"s in code you've written.
Definitely, yes, please keep them.
It's a maintainability issue: Assume that in the future the enum definition
gets extended. When the programmer had omitted the 'default:
