Re: [PATCH] linux-record: Squash cases with identical handling

[Andreas Arnez <arnez at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>]

On Thu, Apr 14 2016, Yao Qi wrote:

> Andreas Arnez <arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 13 2016, Yao Qi wrote:
>>
>>> I thought about squashing them too, but the reason I didn't do that is
>>> these enum gdb_syscall in the switch block are listed in the numeric
>>> order, so that it is quite easy to find whether a syscall is supported,
>>> or add a new syscall.
>>
>> Ah, interesting point.  If we want to stick to this rule, maybe this
>> should be stated in a comment above the switch statement?
>>
>
> It is not my intention to stick to this rule.
>
>> Or should we aim at getting GDB '-Wswitch'-clean?  (Probably a good idea
>
> -Wswitch is enabled by -Wall, so gdb is '-Wswitch'-clean already.

Well, GDB currently uses -Wno-switch.  And if I build GDB without that
option, I get lots of warnings for -Wswitch.

>
>> anyhow...)  Then we could replace the default label by explicit case
>> labels for all unsupported syscalls and rely on GCC to catch any further
>> missing case labels.  Once that's done, the order of case labels
>> wouldn't matter, IMO.
>>
>
> That will be overkill compared with your patch, so ...
>
>>> but, I don't like the fall-through.
>>
>> Yeah, it's kind of ugly.  I can certainly drop this change from the
>> patch if that helps.
>>
>
> ... your patch except the fall-through is good to me.

Thanks, pushed without that.

--
Andreas