lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.059 / U:2.204 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site