Am 24.06.2013 22:27, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > Il 24/06/2013 19:48, Stefan Weil ha scritto: >> i686-w64-mingw32-gcc (GCC) 4.6.3 from Debian wheezy reports this warning: >> >> hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c:188:1: warning: >> control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type] >> >> Replacing the 4th case REMOVE_HW (which is currently unused) by the default >> case fixes this warning. >> >> The assertion is dead code because all possible cases are handled in the >> switch statements, so remove it. This avoids future warnings from static >> code analyzers. >> >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <s...@weilnetz.de> >> --- >> hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c | 4 +--- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c >> index 00f21f5..d49ce53 100644 >> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c >> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c >> @@ -180,11 +180,9 @@ static target_ulong h_remove(PowerPCCPU *cpu, >> sPAPREnvironment *spapr, >> case REMOVE_PARM: >> return H_PARAMETER; >> >> - case REMOVE_HW: >> + default: /* REMOVE_HW */ >> return H_HARDWARE; >> } >> - >> - assert(0); >> } >> >> #define H_BULK_REMOVE_TYPE 0xc000000000000000ULL >> > Does s/assert(0)/abort()/ fix the warning too? That's clearer. > > Paolo
Yes, that also fixes this warning. A better compiler or a static code checker might then complain about dead code because all possible cases are handled in the switch statement. Stefan
