On 08/08/2023 16:53, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
... "return" alone already tells the compiler that "break" is
unreachable. You don't need unreachable() for that. As said before,
"break" like this simply want purging (and Misra is wrong to demand
"break" everywhere - it should instead demand no [unannotated]
fall-through, which can also be achieved by return, continue, and
goto).
My suggestion was in the context of this series where we add
ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() before break. From my understanding, we don't
have a lot of leeway here because, from what Nicola wrote, rule 16.3
is mandatory.
So I think using unreachable is better if we every decide to use break
after return.
Cheers,
16.3 is not Mandatory, just Required.
Ah I misread what you wrote. In that case...
I was just reluctant to knowingly
add one more violation
while fixing another before submitting the patch. If indeed 16.3 won't
likely be adopted by Xen,
then that break should indeed go away.
However, the main thing that's holding me back from doing a slimmed-down
v2 here is that
evidently there's no consensus even on the ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() patches.
... I agree with the following statement from Jan:
"it should instead demand no [unannotated] fall-through, which can also
be achieved by return, continue, and goto"
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
