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:3.669 / U:0.372 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site