From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-24378-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 13137 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2002 16:06:16 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 13115 invoked by uid 71); 12 Nov 2002 16:06:16 -0000
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:01:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20021112160616.13114.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
Subject: Re: c/8548: switch-statement
Reply-To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00592.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR c/8548; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
To: Frank.Cornelis@elis.rug.ac.be
Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: c/8548: switch-statement
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:05:35 +0100

 Frank.Cornelis@elis.rug.ac.be writes:
 
 |> switch (family) {
 |> case PF_LOCAL:
 |> case PF_UNIX:
 |> break;
 |> }
 |> is not a legal statement according to GCC because the macro's evaluate to the same value. This would be true for case-statements with a break in between, not for case-statements handled by the same body. Should be fixed.
 
 Yes, you should fix your code.
 
 Andreas.
 
 -- 
 Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
 SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
 Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
 "And now for something completely different."