Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.lang.c    |    Meh, in C you gotta define EVERYTHING    |    243,242 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 241,400 of 243,242    |
|    David Brown to Richard Harnden    |
|    Re: bugprone-switch-missing-default-case    |
|    22 Oct 25 15:41:55    |
   
   From: david.brown@hesbynett.no   
      
   On 22/10/2025 13:44, Richard Harnden wrote:   
   > On 22/10/2025 10:32, Janis Papanagnou wrote:   
   >> On 22.10.2025 10:56, pozz wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Switch statements without a default case can lead to unexpected   
   >>>> behavior and incomplete handling of all possible cases. When a switch   
   >>>> statement lacks a default case, if a value is encountered that does   
   >>>> not match any of the specified cases, the program will continue   
   >>>> execution without any defined behavior or handling.   
   >>>   
   >>> Maybe I misunderstood that sentence caused by my bad English. I knew   
   >>> that in case the switch value is not present in any case inside the   
   >>> switch, the program continues without doing anything (in the switch) and   
   >>> without any problem.   
   >>>   
   >>> int x = 3;   
   >>> switch(x) {   
   >>> case 1: printf("Hello");break;   
   >>> case 2: printf("World");break;   
   >>> }   
   >>>   
   >>> Will the program execution continue without any defined behaviour?   
      
   Presumably you meant "without any undefined behaviour" ? The code is   
   fine - if no cases match and there is no default case, execution   
   continues from the end of the switch statement. Like most warnings,   
   this is about a possible bug in the code - not a definite one.   
      
   >>   
   >> Your program fragment is well defined.   
   >>   
   >> What the poster certainly tried to express was that in case you   
   >> haven't implemented a complete list of all possible cases and   
   >> also not provided a 'default' to catch all non-specified cases,   
   >> then you might get in troubles with your program, probably by   
   >> possible oversights, future extensions, new data, and whatnot.   
   >>   
   >> Personally I have the habit to always define a default branch,   
   >> and even if that default is impossible to reach you'll find an   
   >> error message (like "internal error with unexpected value...")   
   >> generated at that place.   
      
   I don't think it is normally appropriate to add a default case unless   
   you actually need it - code that exists but can never be reached is   
   untestable and can be confusing to people reading the code. But   
   sometimes it can be useful to add a "default : printf("Internal   
   error...");" for debugging, however.   
      
   In some code, I will have "default : __builtin_unreachable();" to   
   improve code efficiency.   
      
      
   >>   
   > Use an enum, and the compiler will warn you ...   
   >   
   > $ cat x.c   
   > #include
|
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca