On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 09:23:29AM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hey, > > On 14 March 2017 at 23:54, Peter Hutterer <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 05:26:50PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote: > >> When the wheel tilt source is present, gcc complains that we don't > >> handle all possible enumeration values. We already ensure this cannot > >> happen in its only caller (handle_pointer_axis), but gcc doesn't > >> recognise this. Give it a default value to quiet the warning. > > > > tbh, I dislike adding default cases because the warnings are really > > useful to spot which bits aren't handled correctly yet. Especially in cases > > like restricted enums (that don't change that often) it's imo usually better > > to add the missing cases to be clear about the code's intent. > > Fair enough; generally I agree, but I figured it'd be a bit cleaner to > avoid a version check. Mostly though, it was because there's already a > default case in the function's only caller which guarantees that no > other case can ever trigger in this one. Could add an assert(0) in the > default case here to make it really blindingly clear?
yeah, that would work. I also like the assert(!"Invalid type") approach so there's an explanation right there. Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
