Re: 2.2.18 signal.h

[Michael Meissner <meissner@spectacle-pond.org>]

On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 07:54:33PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 06:59:24PM +0100, Franz Sirl wrote:
> > It's required by ISO C, and since that's the standard now, gcc spits out a 
> > warning. Just adding a ; is enough and already done for most stuff in 
> > 2.4.0-test12.
> 
> I'm not complaining gcc folks, I just dislike the new behaviour in general,
> it's inconsistent.
> 
> This is wrong:
> 
> x()
> {
> 
> 	switch (1) {
> 	case 0:
> 	case 1:
> 	case 2:
> 	case 3:
> 	}
> }
> 
> and this is right:
> 
> x()
> {
> 
> 	switch (1) {
> 	case 0:
> 	case 1:
> 	case 2:
> 	case 3:
> 	;
> 	}
> }
> 
> Why am I required to put a `;' only in the last case and not in all
> the previous ones? Or maybe gcc-latest is forgetting to complain about
> the previous ones ;)

Because neither

	<label>:		(nor)
	case <expr>:		(nor)
	default:

are statements by themselves.  They are an optional start of a statement.  The
ebnf looks like:

	statement:
		  labeled-statement
		| expression-statem
		| compoundstatement
		| selection-statement
		| iteration-statement
		| jump-statement

	labeled-statement:
		  identifier ':' statement
		| 'case' constant-expression ':' statement
		| 'default' ':' statement

-- 
Michael Meissner, Red Hat, Inc.  (GCC group)
PMB 198, 174 Littleton Road #3, Westford, Massachusetts 01886, USA
Work:	  meissner@redhat.com		phone: +1 978-486-9304
Non-work: meissner@spectacle-pond.org	fax:   +1 978-692-4482
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/