Re: jscript: Mark some fall-throughs in switch statements

[Alexandre Julliard]

Andrew Talbot  writes:
> @@ -4037,6 +4037,7 @@ static HRESULT RegExpConstr_leftContext(script_ctx_t *ctx, vdisp_t *jsthis, WORD
>      V_VT(retv) = VT_BSTR;
>      V_BSTR(retv) = ret;
> -
>    /* fall through */
> }
>    case DISPATCH_PROPERTYPUT:
>        return S_OK;

I don't think that PROPERTYGET is supposed to fall through to
PROPERTYPUT.

jscript: Mark some fall-throughs in switch statements

[Bruno Jesus]

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 14:58, Alexandre Julliard  wrote:
> Andrew Talbot  writes:
> > @@ -4037,6 +4037,7 @@ static HRESULT RegExpConstr_leftContext(script_ctx_t *ctx, vdisp_t *jsthis, WORD
> >
> > V_VT(retv) = VT_BSTR;
> >          V_BSTR(retv) = ret;
> > - /* fall through */
> >
> > }
> >      case DISPATCH_PROPERTYPUT:
> >          return S_OK;
>
> I don't think that PROPERTYGET is supposed to fall through to
> PROPERTYPUT.

Isn't it that way just to save the use of an extra return S_OK?
Instead a break could be used too because that function returns S_OK
by default.

http://source.winehq.org/source/dlls/jscript/regexp.c#L4025

Best regards,
Bruno

jscript: Mark some fall-throughs in switch statements

[Andrew Talbot]

> Isn't it that way just to save the use of an extra return S_OK?
> Instead a break could be used too because that function returns S_OK
> by default.
>
> http://source.winehq.org/source/dlls/jscript/regexp.c#L4025
>
> Best regards,
> Bruno

A fall-through would indeed be lazy and not in the spirit of the fact that
DISPATCH_PROPERTYGET and DISPATCH_PROPERTYPUT are kind of the opposite of
each other. It either requires a break in both places (for consistency)
to the common "return S_OK" or two immediate such returns, instead.