On 13.06.2024 11:02, Federico Serafini wrote: > On 13/06/24 10:16, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 13.06.2024 08:38, Federico Serafini wrote: >>> + * - R16.3 >>> + - Switch clauses ending with a do-while-false which, in turn, ends >>> with an >> >> Maybe more precisely "the body of which"? > > Will do. > >> >>> + allowed terminal statement are safe (e.g., PARSE_ERR_RET()). >>> + Being ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() a construct that is effective in debug >>> builds >>> + only, it is not considered as an allowed terminal statement, >>> despite its >>> + definition. >> >> DYM despite its name? Its definition is what specifically renders it >> unsuitable >> for release builds. > > In debug builds, ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() expands to a do-while-false > the body of which ends with __builtin_unreachable() which is a builtin > marked as "noreturn" and thus considered as one of the "allowed > terminal statements". > As a result, ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() will be considered as an > "allowed terminal statement" as well, which is something we want to > avoid.
Hmm, then maybe add "there" at the end of the sentence, to refer back to "debug builds"? Jan
