Even if it is legal, mixing case and non-case labels in the body of a switch statement is very confusing and can even be the result of a typing error.

## Noncompliant Code Examples

Case 1, the code is syntactically correct but the behavior is not the expected one

    switch (day) {
      case MONDAY:
      case TUESDAY:
      WEDNESDAY:   // instead of "case WEDNESDAY"
        doSomething();
        break;
      ...
    }

Case 2, the code is correct and behaves as expected but is hardly readable

    switch (day) {
      case MONDAY:
        break;
      case TUESDAY:
        foo:for(i = 0 ; i < X ; i++) {
             /* ... */
            break foo;  // this break statement doesn't relate to the nesting case TUESDAY
             /* ... */
        }
        break;
        /* ... */
    }

## Compliant Solution

Case 1

    switch (day) {
      case MONDAY:
      case TUESDAY:
      case WEDNESDAY:
        doSomething();
        break;
      ...
    }

Case 2

    switch (day) {
      case MONDAY:
        break;
      case TUESDAY:
        compute(args); // put the content of the labelled "for" statement in a dedicated method
        break;

        /* ... */
    }

## See

- MISRA C:2004, 15.0 - The MISRA C switch syntax shall be used.
- MISRA C++:2008, 6-4-3 - A switch statement shall be a well-formed switch statement.
- MISRA C:2012, 16.1 - All switch statements shall be well-formed