Let's have a list of values (foo.lst):
foo,
bar,
baz,
Let's make an enum out of this
enum foo {
#include "foo.lst"
_foo_length
};
Let's use that enum in a switch
:
int main(void) {
enum foo[_foo_length];
switch(f[0]) {
case foo: return 0;
case bar: return 0;
case baz: return 0;
}
__builtin_unreachable();
}
(this code is dumb, but just ignore that)
The problem:
With -Wswitch
(included in -Wall
), GCC and Clang (and probably others) will warn:
warning: enumeration value '_foo_length' not handled in switch [-Wswitch]
Solutions:
-Wno-switch
hides that warning.case
missing from the switch.default: unreachable();
case.#define _foo_length (baz + 1)
, making it not part of the enum anymore.Ideally, there should be a way to mark an enum's value as no being assignable, thereby making it not produce a warning in the compiler when reading the possible values and this one isn't there, without requiring a preprocessor macro needing duplicate modifications.
Is there anything like that? Any other option I didn't think of?
To distinguish correct AML alerts, the data processed should be as simple and straightforward as possible. Therefore, companies that organize data based on specific customer information rather than under a single heading will greatly reduce false positives.
The best way to avoid a false negative result, is to ensure that your experiment has sufficient power before you conduct it. A power analysis will help you determine how many observations (i.e. users passing through your test) are needed in order to reliably detect a given amount of difference.
Use
case _foo_length:
unreachable();
break;
so that all the cases will be handled. You could create a macro for it to keep it from being so verbose.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With