Reviewing some 3rd party C code I came across something like:
switch (state) {
case 0:
if (c=='A') { // open brace
// code...
break; // brace not closed!
case 1:
// code...
break;
} // close brace!
case 2:
// code...
break;
}
Which in the code I was reviewing appeared to be just a typo but I was surprised that it compiled with out error.
Why is this valid C?
What is the effect on the execution of this code compared to closing the brace at the expected place?
Is there any case where this could be of use?
Edit: In the example I looked at all breaks were present (as above) - but answer could also include behaviour if break absent in case 0 or 1.
Not only is it valid, similar structure has been used in real code, e.g., Duff's Device, which is an unrolled loop for copying a buffer:
send(to, from, count)
register short *to, *from;
register count;
{
register n = (count + 7) / 8;
switch(count % 8) {
case 0: do { *to = *from++;
case 7: *to = *from++;
case 6: *to = *from++;
case 5: *to = *from++;
case 4: *to = *from++;
case 3: *to = *from++;
case 2: *to = *from++;
case 1: *to = *from++;
} while(--n > 0);
}
}
Since a switch statement really just computes an address and jumps to it, it's easy to see why it can overlap with other control structures; the lines within other control structures have addresses that can be jump targets, too!
In the case you presented, imagine if there were no switch or breaks in your code. When you've finished executing the then portion of a if statement, you just keep going, so you'd fall through into the case 2:. Now, since you have the switch and break, it matters what break can break out of. According to the MSDN page, “The C break statement”,
The break statement terminates the execution of the nearest enclosing do, for, switch, or while statement in which it appears. Control passes to the statement that follows the terminated statement.
Since the nearest enclosing do, for, switch, or while statement is your switch (notice that if is not included in that list), then if you're inside the then block, you transfer to the outside of the switch statement. What's a bit more interesting, though, is what happens if you enter case 0, but c == 'A' is false. Then the if transfers control to just after the closing brace of the then block, and you start executing the code in case 2.
In C and C++ it is legal to jump into loops and if blocks so long as you don't jump over any variable declarations. You can check this answer for an example using goto, but I don't see why the same ideas wouldn't apply to switch blocks.
The semantics are different than if the } was above case 1 as you would expect.
This code actually says if state == 0 and c != 'A' then go to case 2 since that's where the closing brace of the if statement is. It then processes that code and hits the break statement at the end of the case 2 code.
Related
Reviewing some 3rd party C code I came across something like:
switch (state) {
case 0:
if (c=='A') { // open brace
// code...
break; // brace not closed!
case 1:
// code...
break;
} // close brace!
case 2:
// code...
break;
}
Which in the code I was reviewing appeared to be just a typo but I was surprised that it compiled with out error.
Why is this valid C?
What is the effect on the execution of this code compared to closing the brace at the expected place?
Is there any case where this could be of use?
Edit: In the example I looked at all breaks were present (as above) - but answer could also include behaviour if break absent in case 0 or 1.
Not only is it valid, similar structure has been used in real code, e.g., Duff's Device, which is an unrolled loop for copying a buffer:
send(to, from, count)
register short *to, *from;
register count;
{
register n = (count + 7) / 8;
switch(count % 8) {
case 0: do { *to = *from++;
case 7: *to = *from++;
case 6: *to = *from++;
case 5: *to = *from++;
case 4: *to = *from++;
case 3: *to = *from++;
case 2: *to = *from++;
case 1: *to = *from++;
} while(--n > 0);
}
}
Since a switch statement really just computes an address and jumps to it, it's easy to see why it can overlap with other control structures; the lines within other control structures have addresses that can be jump targets, too!
In the case you presented, imagine if there were no switch or breaks in your code. When you've finished executing the then portion of a if statement, you just keep going, so you'd fall through into the case 2:. Now, since you have the switch and break, it matters what break can break out of. According to the MSDN page, “The C break statement”,
The break statement terminates the execution of the nearest enclosing do, for, switch, or while statement in which it appears. Control passes to the statement that follows the terminated statement.
Since the nearest enclosing do, for, switch, or while statement is your switch (notice that if is not included in that list), then if you're inside the then block, you transfer to the outside of the switch statement. What's a bit more interesting, though, is what happens if you enter case 0, but c == 'A' is false. Then the if transfers control to just after the closing brace of the then block, and you start executing the code in case 2.
In C and C++ it is legal to jump into loops and if blocks so long as you don't jump over any variable declarations. You can check this answer for an example using goto, but I don't see why the same ideas wouldn't apply to switch blocks.
The semantics are different than if the } was above case 1 as you would expect.
This code actually says if state == 0 and c != 'A' then go to case 2 since that's where the closing brace of the if statement is. It then processes that code and hits the break statement at the end of the case 2 code.
According to this book I am reading：
Q What happens if I omit a break in a switch-case statement?
A The break statement enables program execution to exit the switch construct.
Without it, execution continues evaluating the following case statements.
Suppose if I have codes looking like
switch (option}{
case 1:
do A;
case 2:
do B;
default:
do C;
break;
}
Does this mean if I choose case 1, the A and C are done. If I choose case 2, B and C are done. If i choose neither, then only C is done.
if so, what happens if we omit the break after do C.
I assume these are bad programming practice, but I am curious what would happen to get a deeper understanding how it all works. Thanks
You execute everything starting from the selected case up until you see a break or the switch statement ends. So it might be that only C is executed, or B and then C, or A and B and C, but never A and C
If you don't include break in any of case then all the case below will be executed and until it sees break.
And if you don't include break in default then it will cause no effect as there are not any case below this 'Default' case.
And not using break generally considered as a bad practice but some time it may also come handy because of its fall-through nature.For example:
case optionA:
//optionA needs to do its own thing, and also B's thing.
//Fall-through to optionB afterwards.
//Its behaviour is a superset of B's.
case optionB:
// optionB needs to do its own thing
// Its behaviour is a subset of A's.
break;
case optionC:
// optionC is quite independent so it does its own thing.
break;
The break acts like a goto command. Or, as a better example, it is like when using return in a void function. Since it is at the end, it makes no difference whether it is there or not. Although, I do like to include it.
switch (option}{
case 1:
do A;
case 2:
do B;
case 2:
do C;
break;
default:
do C;
}
if your option is 1 it executes everything til it finds the break keyword...
that mean break end the excution of the switch --> case
Output :A then B then C
so it is recommended to put break after each case
like :
switch (option}{
case 1:
do A;
break;
case 2:
do B;
break;
do C;
break;
default:
do D;
}
if your option is 1 the Output will be : just A ...
note: default doesn't need a break;
I've seen in many comments and answers that it's a bad practice to omit break lines. I personally find it very useful in some cases.
Let's just take a very simple example. It's probably not the best one, just take it as an illustration:
- on bad login, you need to log the failed attempt.
- for the third bad attempt, you want to log and do some further stuff (alert admin, block account, ...).
Since the action is the same for first and second try, no need to break between these two and rewrite the same commands a second time.
Now the third time, you want to do other things AND also log. Just do the other things first, then let it run (no break) through the log action of the first and second attempts:
switch (badCount) {
case 3: //only for 3
alertAdmin();
blockAccount();
case 2: //for 2 AND 3
case 1: //for 1 AND 2 and 3
errorLog();
badCount++;
}
Imho, if it was soooo bad practice to have common code for different cases, the C structure would simply NOT allow it.
The key is execution control is transferred to the statement for the matching case.
E.g.
1. switch(x) {
2. case 1:
3. do_step1;
4. case 2:
5. do_step2;
6. default:
7. do_default;
8. }
Treat lines 2, 4, 6, as "Labels" for the goto calls. On x = 1, the control will be transferred to line 3 & execution of line 3, 5 & 7 will occur.
Try yourself - Run the code using ideone available here.
#include <stdio.h>
void doA(int *i){
printf("doA i = %d\n", *i);
*i = 3;
}
void doB(int *i){
printf("doB i = %d\n", *i);
*i = 4;
}
void doC(int *i){
printf("doC i = %d\n", *i);
*i = 5;
}
int main(void) {
int i = 1;
switch(i){
case 1:
doA(&i);
case 2:
doB(&i);
default:
doC(&i);
break;
}
return 0;
}
Output:
doA i = 1
doB i = 3
doC i = 4
Note:
It will execute all the options from the selected case until it sees a break or the switch statement ends. So it might be that only C is executed, or B and then C, or A and B and C, but never A and C
If you change the value of the variable analysed in switch inside the handle function (e.g doA), it does not affect the flow as describe above
Without break statements, each time a match occurs in the switch, the statements for that case and SUBSEQUENT CASES execute until a break statement or the end of the switch is encountered.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
The switch statement in C/C++ has an interesing feature that all subsequent blocks will be executed if a condition is met
For example,
int a = 2;
int b = a;
switch(b)
{
case 1:cout<<1;
case 2:cout<<2;
case 3:cout<<3;
case 4:cout<<4;
};
The above code will output 234 unless I put a break statement in case 2.
In 3 years(quite small,yeah) of my C/C++ programming experience, I have never encountered a problem where I had to use switch without putting break statments in every case. But judging by the fact that this feature has been stuck for so long, there might be some utility of it.
Question: What are some clever uses of switch statement as to utilize the above mentioned feature in C/C++?
Probably one of the most interesting use cases I have seen would be Duff's Device the case where you extend a scope within a switch over multiple cases which would look something like this:
void send( int *to, const int *from, int count)
{
int n = (count + 7) / 8;
switch(count % 8)
{
case 0: do { *to = *from++; // <- Scope start
case 7: *to = *from++;
case 6: *to = *from++;
case 5: *to = *from++;
case 4: *to = *from++;
case 3: *to = *from++;
case 2: *to = *from++;
case 1: *to = *from++;
} while(--n > 0); // <- Scope end
}
}
This is usually used when you want to apply a similar action to a set of values. For instance, the following :
switch (event) {
case DEVICE_DISCONNECTED:
case CONNECTION_ERROR:
case CONNECTION_TIMEOUT:
transitionTo(disconnectedState);
break;
case CONNECTION_SUCCESS:
transitionTo(connectedState);
break;
}
is much more concise and readable in my opinion than :
switch (event) {
case DEVICE_DISCONNECTED:
transitionTo(disconnectedState);
break;
case CONNECTION_ERROR:
transitionTo(disconnectedState);
break;
case CONNECTION_TIMEOUT:
transitionTo(disconnectedState);
break;
// ...
}
In my current project, I have the following enumeration:
enum NodeType
{
SCALAR, COMPOSITE, ARRAY, RESTRICTED_ARRAY
};
Thus, quite a few node-processing routines use this pattern:
switch (nodeType)
{
case SCALAR:
processScalar();
break;
case COMPOSITE:
processComposite();
break;
case RESTRICTED_ARRAY:
if (!handleRestrictions())
return false;
// continue to next case
case ARRAY:
processArray();
break;
}
Note that it's almost necessary to always mark the lack-of-break as explicitly intended with a comment (like I did above) - future maintainers (including yourself in 3 months) will thank you.
I've often used a construct to parse command line arguments like this:
switch (argument) {
case arg_h:
case arg__help:
case arg_questionmark:
printf("Help\n");
break;
case arg_f:
case arg__file:
//...
}
where argument is an enum type.
Is the following possible in C++?
switch (value) {
case 0:
// code statements
break;
case 1:
case 2:
// code statements for case 1 and case 2
/**insert statement other than break here
that makes the switch statement continue
evaluating case statements rather than
exit the switch**/
case 2:
// code statements specific for case 2
break;
}
I want to know if there is a way to make the switch statement continue evaluating the rest of the cases even after it has hit a matching case. (such as a continue statement in other languages)
How about a simple if?
switch (value)
{
case 0:
// ...
break;
case 1:
case 2:
// common code
if (value == 2)
{
// code specific to "2"
}
break;
case 3:
// ...
}
Once the case label is decided, there is no way to have the switch continue to search for other matching labels. You can continue to process the code for the following label(s) but this doesn't distinguish between the different reasons why a case label was reached. So, no, there is no way to coninue the selection. In fact, duplicate case labels are prohibited in C++.
Yep, just don't put in a break. It will naturally fall down to the other switch statements.
As a disclaimer, this is a homework problem. But it's one where the answer can't be found from our lecture notes and we're encouraged to find the answer through research (on the internet I presume). We're given the following code fragment, and asked for the technical name for this particular "peculiar" use of switch statement (this is in C++)
switch (x) {
case 0:
if ( m > n ) {
case 1:
for ( o = 0; o < 10; o += 1 ){
case 2:
p += 1;
}
}
}
where x, m, n, o, and p are int
I've answered all of the questions given about how the code operates under different conditions, but I can not find this mysterious technical name for this kind of switch statement. I've tried a few creative google searches, and read several pages about switch statement, but can't find mention of a case like this where if and for are nested within. Can anyone point me in the right direction??
A famous technique that is closely related to this is known as "Duff's Device". The Wikipedia page has a fairly detailed discussion that includes the following passage:
C's default fall-through in case
statements has long been one of its
most controversial features; Duff
observed that "This code forms some
sort of argument in that debate, but
I'm not sure whether it's for or
against."
I don't know if I've ever seen or heard of anything quite this twisted,
but I wonder if your prof wasn't thinking of Duff's device. The
original version was:
register n=(count+7)/8;
switch(count%8){
case 0: do{ *to = *from++;
case 7: *to = *from++;
case 6: *to = *from++;
case 5: *to = *from++;
case 4: *to = *from++;
case 3: *to = *from++;
case 2: *to = *from++;
case 1: *to = *from++;
}while(--n>0);
}
(to pointed to a memory mapped IO register.) To quote Tom Duff (the
inventor), "I feel a combination of pride and revulsion at this
discovery," and "Many people (even bwk?) have said that the worst
feature of C is that switches don't break automatically before each case
label. This code forms some sort of argument in that debate, but I'm
not sure whether it's for or against."
Many, many years ago (about the time Tom Duff invented this), I came up
with something along the lines of:
switch ( category[*p] ) {
// ...
case CH_DOT:
if ( category[*(p + 1)] == CH_DIGIT )
case CH_DIGIT:
p = parseNumber( p );
else
case CH_PUNCT:
p = parsePunct( p );
break;
// ...
}
I never gave it a name, however, and never let it escape into production
code.