A switch
block comprises several case
labels and an optional but highly recommended default
label. Statements that follow each case
label must end with a break
statement, which is responsible for transferring the control to the end of the switch
block. When omitted, the statements in the subsequent case
label are executed. Because the break
statement is optional, omitting it produces no compiler warnings. When this behavior is unintentional, it can cause unexpected control flow.
Noncompliant Code Example
In this noncompliant code example, the case wherein where the card
is 11
lacks a break
statement. As a result, execution continues with the statements for card = 12
.
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
int card = 11; switch (card) { /* ... */ case 11: System.out.println("Jack"); case 12: System.out.println("Queen"); break; case 13: System.out.println("King"); break; default: System.out.println("Invalid Card"); break; } |
Compliant Solution
This compliant solution terminates each case (including the default
case) with a break
statement.:
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
int card = 11; switch (card) { /* ... */ case 11: System.out.println("Jack"); break; case 12: System.out.println("Queen"); break; case 13: System.out.println("King"); break; default: System.out.println("Invalid Card"); break; } |
Applicability
Failure to include break
statements can cause unexpected control flow.
The break
statement at the end of the final case in a switch
statement may be omitted. By convention, this is the default
label. The break
statement serves to transfer control to the end of the switch
block. Fall-through behavior also causes control to arrive at the end of the switch
block. Consequently, control transfers to the statements following the switch
block without regard to the presence or absence of the break
statement. Nevertheless, the final case in a switch
statement should end with a break
statement in accordance with good programming style (see [Rogue Vermeulen 2000]).
When Exceptionally, when multiple cases require execution of identical code, then break
statements may be omitted from all cases except the last one. Similarly, when processing for one case is a proper prefix of processing for one or more other cases, the break
statement may be omitted from the prefix case. This should be clearly indicated with a comment. For example:
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
int card = 11; int value; // Cases 11,12,13 fall through to the same case switch (card) { // Processing for this case requires a prefix // MSC13-J:EX2: these of the actions for the following three case 10: do_something(card); // Intentional fall-through // These three cases are treated identically case 11: // breakBreak not required case 12: // breakBreak not required case 13: value = 10; break; // breakBreak required default: // Handle Errorerror Conditioncondition } |
When Also, when a case ends with a return
or throw
statement, the break
statement may be omitted.
Related Guidelines
Automated Detection
Tool | Version | Checker | Description | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Parasoft Jtest |
| CERT.MSC52.SBC | Do not use a "switch" statement with a bad "case" | ||||||
SonarQube |
| S128 |
"CLL Switch Statements and Static Analysis"
Bibliography
...