Jody Hagins wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:34:33 +0300 Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su> wrote:
The problem is that gcc is too smart. Switch does not handle a single enumerator --- 'ed_success', very reasonable. It's handled before the switch. Even if I add 'ed_success' case, it still report the warning.
So, I've worked this around by adding 'return' in default case. The change is committed.
Hmmm... What do you mean by "Switch does not handle a single enumerator --- 'ed_success', very reasonable?"
I mean that switch handles all enumerators, except 'ed_success'. This one indicates no error, so should not be handled in a switch which returns error code. This value is handled with if (e == e_success) return; before the switch
Also, is a "return" what you really want here? If you have an error condition that you do not recognize, then this should at least throw a logic_error, if not some other.
The best approach would be to add "ed_success" to the switch...
Maybe adding something like "unknown" to invalid_command_line_syntax::kind_t and then initializing "re" to "unknown" would still allow you to fall out of the switch and still throw the exception, with a kind_t of "unknown." Better than just returning, IMO.
Also, I have found beneficial when "switching" on an enumeration, to leave out the default case all together. Some compilers will then emit a warning if you forgot to handle a case, or if the enumeration changes and a "new" addition is not handled in the switch.
...... but gcc still complains about use of uninitialized var. The only solution I have is: - initialize 'res' to some value - add 'ed_success' to switch - remove 'default' This way, if I add a new enumerator compiler will remind to add it to switch. Anyway, I suspect that code will get rewritten some day. - Volodya