Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:18:56 -0600 | From | Thomas Dodd <> | Subject | Re: 2.2.18 signal.h |
| |
Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 05:55:08PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > > That `;' above is NOT in just the last one. In your above > > example, all the labels will execute the same `;' statement. > > > > In fact, the default behaviour of the switch() operation is > > to fall through to the next defined label and you have to put > > in an explicit `break;' if you want to prevent `case 0:' from > > reaching the `;' below the `case 3:'... > > Are you kidding me?
Absolutely NOT.
switch (x) { case 0: case 1: printf ("%d\n", x); break; case 2: printf ("%d\n",x*x); case 3: printf ("%d\n", x*x*x); }
if x==0 or 1, prints x (the 0 or one), if x==2 , it prints 4 and 8 since no break statement exits the switch, if x==3, it prints only 27, any othe value of x, and nothing is printed.
Every C compile I have ever used does this. Sun's C and C++, HP's C, Microsoft's VC++, Borland's C, and all versions of gcc and g++.
Grab any C programming book, and find the switch statement.
-Thomas - 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/
| |