Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!chris
From: chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Unchecked Switch Statement
Message-ID: <225@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Mar-86 17:06:31 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.225
Posted: Wed Mar 12 17:06:31 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Mar-86 07:28:56 EST
References: <1706@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 44

In article <1706@brl-smoke.ARPA> dietz%slb-doll.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
writes:

>There seems to be an philosophical difference in C between array
>accesses and switch statements. ...  A more consistent definition
>would have the compiler generate code that checks for an out-of-bounds
>switch expression only when a default label is present.

I think the way you stated this is unclear; I am going to guess that
by this you mean writing (e.g.)

	switch (exp) {
	case c1: ...;
	case c2: ...;
	}
	nextstmt;

would give undefined results if `exp' were not `c1' or `c2': a
compiler might give a run-time error, or might not; and execution
might fall through to `nextstmt', or stop, or even just go someplace
at random, as though switch were internally implemented by that
particular compiler as

	pc <- switchaddrs[exp]

Given the assumption that this is what you meant, I would agree
if C allowed arbitrary array arrangements (e.g., sparse arrays).
In this case, arrays would be arrays of data, and switches would
be arrays of code.

Imagine:

	var = array[
		index;
	default:
		printf("%d: out of bounds array index\n", index);
		exit(1);
	];

(Ok, enough wild and crazy ideas.)
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1415)
UUCP:	seismo!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet:	chris@umcp-cs		ARPA:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu