| Message ID | 1372096130-24994-3-git-send-email-sw@weilnetz.de |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
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 <sw@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
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 <sw@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
Il 24/06/2013 22:35, Stefan Weil ha scritto: > 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 <sw@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. > > 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. We'll get there when we see it... and such a compiler can well learn to ignore a dead abort(). Paolo
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
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 <sw@weilnetz.de> --- hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c | 4 +--- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)