lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.2.18 signal.h
On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:18:35AM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> writes:
>
> > x()
> > {
> >
> > switch (1) {
> > case 0:
> > case 1:
> > case 2:
> > case 3:
> > ;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > Why am I required to put a `;' only in the last case and not in all
> > the previous ones? Or maybe gcc-latest is forgetting to complain about
> > the previous ones ;)
>
> Your C language knowledge seems to have holes. It must be possible to
> have more than one label for a statement. Look through the kernel
> sources, there are definitely cases where this is needed.

I don't understand what you're talking about. Who ever talked about "more than
one label"?

The only issue here is having 1 random label at the end of a compound
statement. Nothing else.

And yes I can see that the whole point of the change is that they want
to also forbids this:

x()
{
goto out;
out:
}

and I dislike not being allowed to do the above as well infact ;).

Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.226 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site