* Re: MIPS: Fix build error with modern GCC for non-Cavium.
[not found] <S1903390Ab2IDU16/20120904202758Z+1425@eddie.linux-mips.org>
@ 2012-09-08 19:28 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-10 17:11 ` Ralf Baechle
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Maciej W. Rozycki @ 2012-09-08 19:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-mips
On Tue, 4 Sep 2012, linux-mips@linux-mips.org wrote:
> An empty default block is not allowed so add a ; as empty statement to
> make gcc happy.
A dummy "break" is the usual solution though. I don't think GCC ever
complains if it sees it unreachable after a "return" -- in a sense it is
just as unreachable as this null instruction is.
Maciej
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: MIPS: Fix build error with modern GCC for non-Cavium.
2012-09-08 19:28 ` MIPS: Fix build error with modern GCC for non-Cavium Maciej W. Rozycki
@ 2012-09-10 17:11 ` Ralf Baechle
2012-09-15 22:42 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ralf Baechle @ 2012-09-10 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Maciej W. Rozycki; +Cc: linux-mips
On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 08:28:26PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > An empty default block is not allowed so add a ; as empty statement to
> > make gcc happy.
>
> A dummy "break" is the usual solution though. I don't think GCC ever
> complains if it sees it unreachable after a "return" -- in a sense it is
> just as unreachable as this null instruction is.
I wasn't overly picky. Whatever gets the stuff to build correctly. I'm
doing one final round of test builds over all -stable branches before
dropping most of them like radioctive rocks. But more on that later.
Ralf
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: MIPS: Fix build error with modern GCC for non-Cavium.
2012-09-10 17:11 ` Ralf Baechle
@ 2012-09-15 22:42 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Maciej W. Rozycki @ 2012-09-15 22:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ralf Baechle; +Cc: linux-mips
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> > A dummy "break" is the usual solution though. I don't think GCC ever
> > complains if it sees it unreachable after a "return" -- in a sense it is
> > just as unreachable as this null instruction is.
>
> I wasn't overly picky. Whatever gets the stuff to build correctly. I'm
> doing one final round of test builds over all -stable branches before
> dropping most of them like radioctive rocks. But more on that later.
Yeah, sure -- I just noted this is not breaking a new ground really.
There was a time GCC used to support genuinely empty switch cases and that
was removed at one point for better ISO C compliance. There was a rush
fixing code all over the place at that point, including some "proper" GNU
software such as I reckon bison, and the common approach taken was that I
referred to.
Maciej
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-09-15 22:42 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <S1903390Ab2IDU16/20120904202758Z+1425@eddie.linux-mips.org>
2012-09-08 19:28 ` MIPS: Fix build error with modern GCC for non-Cavium Maciej W. Rozycki
2012-09-10 17:11 ` Ralf Baechle
2012-09-15 22:42 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox