Mark Wielaard <m...@klomp.org> writes: > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 12:47:07AM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 12:06:56AM +0200, Marc wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > > Translating the AST LifetimeType to the HIR LifetimeType causes a >> > > warning: >> > > warning: ‘ltt’ may be used uninitialized >> > >> > Was wondering why this is needed as the switch case covers all enum >> > variants, how can ltt be uninitialized ? I have the same fix locally but >> > was thinking something else was causing the error... >> >> LifetimeType is a plain enum, which aren't really their own types, >> they are really just ints with fancy names. We could make them enum >> class, which is a strong type. Then the compiler would know the switch >> really covers all enum (class) variants. But then we have to provide >> the right scope/type everywhere we use them in the code (which might >> be a good idea, but is more typing). > > I just tried to make LifetimeType an enum class and that doesn't help. > So I was wrong. I don't know why the compiler doesn't see this? It > should know since if not all switch cases were covered, -Wswitch > (enabled by -Wall) gives us a warning... So, I don't fully understand > why gcc needs the default gcc_unreachable case. It is what is used in > the rest of the code though.
I thought maybe that's a C++ vs C diff, or something caused by the Lifetime being returned by a function call, but I can't reproduce it, so that must be something else: https://godbolt.org/z/sjbcWEqdj Anyway, Philipp wants to have these enum shared between AST and HIR, so this kind of 'if(AST::Foo) t=HIR::Foo' can be removed. I'm still curious about why the warning is raised in this case... Marc -- Gcc-rust mailing list Gcc-rust@gcc.gnu.org https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-rust
