Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 13:27:00 +1000 From: David Nugent <davidn@labs.usn.blaze.net.au> To: "Jin Guojun[ITG]" <jin@george.lbl.gov> Cc: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gnu/3554 Message-ID: <199705100327.NAA05341@labs.usn.blaze.net.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 May 1997 09:11:41 MST." <199705091611.JAA28108@george.lbl.gov>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Synopsis: cc failed on deafult <= default > > > > That's actually legal C code. > > Theoretically, it is correct; but it is awkward. This kind program bug is > very hard to find out without checking every word of the code. No, actually, its very easy. Use -Wall, and you get warnings about unused labels. > cc does NOT provide any information/warrning on it Err, look again. :) Not to mention that 1,000 other typos that can otherwise go unnoticed when not using -Wall. Everyone develops code using -Wall, don't they? If not, why not? I don't know how many times -Wall has caught things like this in one way or another for me. > warning: default is not defined in this switch block, but a similar lable > was found. This may be a typo. Gack. "may be"? Issue warnings for perfectly valid code because it *looks* like something else? No thanks. Compilers take long enough to do things already without asking it to second-guess my every word. Regards, David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199705100327.NAA05341>