[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 1/8] ui/vnc-enc-tight: add abort() for unexpected
From: |
Alex Bennée |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 1/8] ui/vnc-enc-tight: add abort() for unexpected default |
Date: |
Tue, 20 Sep 2016 15:59:55 +0100 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 0.9.17; emacs 25.1.14 |
Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> writes:
> On 20/09/2016 10:02, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 7:58 PM Alex Bennée <address@hidden
>> <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
>>
>> When enabling the sanitizer build it will complain about control
>> reaching a non-void function. Normally the compiler should detect that
>> there is only one possible exit given a static VNC_SERVER_FB_BYTES.
>>
>> As we should never get here I added an abort() rather than a default
>> return value.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <address@hidden
>> <mailto:address@hidden>>
>> ---
>> ui/vnc-enc-tight.c | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/ui/vnc-enc-tight.c b/ui/vnc-enc-tight.c
>> index 49df85e..9e4d254 100644
>> --- a/ui/vnc-enc-tight.c
>> +++ b/ui/vnc-enc-tight.c
>> @@ -710,6 +710,8 @@ static bool check_solid_tile(VncState *vs, int
>> x, int y, int w, int h,
>> switch (VNC_SERVER_FB_BYTES) {
>> case 4:
>> return check_solid_tile32(vs, x, y, w, h, color, samecolor);
>> + default:
>> + abort();
>> }
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Marc-André Lureau <address@hidden
>> <mailto:address@hidden>>
>>
>> Looks fine. Would it make sense to use a
>> G_STATIC_ASSERT(VNC_SERVER_FB_BYTES == 4) above instead?
>
> Or QEMU_BUILD_BUG_ON(VNC_SERVER_FB_BYTES != 4) :)
I'll do that!
>
> Paolo
>
>> --
>> Marc-André Lureau
--
Alex Bennée
[Qemu-devel] [RFC 3/8] new: blacklist.tsan, Alex Bennée, 2016/09/19
[Qemu-devel] [RFC 4/8] seqlock: use atomic writes for the sequence, Alex Bennée, 2016/09/19
[Qemu-devel] [RFC 8/8] .travis.yml: add gcc sanitizer build, Alex Bennée, 2016/09/19
[Qemu-devel] [RFC 7/8] util/qht: atomically set b->hashes, Alex Bennée, 2016/09/19