Re: 2.2.18 signal.h

From: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
Cc: Franz Sirl <Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com>,
	"Richard B. Johnson" <root@chaos.analogic.com>,
	Mike Black <mblack@csihq.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.or" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.2.18 signal.h
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:55:08 -0200 (BRDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0012151752421.3596-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20001215195433.G17781@inspiron.random>

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> 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?

That `;' above is NOT in just the last one. In your above
example, all the labels will execute the same `;' statement.

In fact, the default behaviour of the switch() operation is
to fall through to the next defined label and you have to put
in an explicit `break;' if you want to prevent `case 0:' from
reaching the `;' below the `case 3:'...

regards,

Rik
--
Hollywood goes for world dumbination,
	Trailer at 11.

		http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/	http://distro.conectiva.com.br/

-
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/