--------- Received message begins Here ---------
> From: Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:18:35AM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> > Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
The label must be on an expression. Until the ";" is present to indicate
a null expression it is syntacticly incorrect to have
switch (x) {
1:
2: something;
3:
}
The "3:" needs an expression to satisfy the syntax of "switch".
> 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 ;).
I think this has the same requirement. A null expression, specified with
the ";" is a small price to pay for simplifying the error detection.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
