On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 7:20 PM Fabian Groffen <grob...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > To illustrate harmless: > > > warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] > > > The warning message already has it in it that it's just a pure guess. > > > > One that exposed a lot of unintentional fallthoughs which were fixed > > when reporting to upstream. > > Sure that's why the warning is there. But you ignore the point that the > same code compiled fine and ran fine for years without problems.
The fact that something is compiling and running fine meaning there are no issues (bugs) within code? Seriously? Even after no-warning with multiple compiler vendors, code coverage, unit testing, test on various of architecture developer has access to, static code analysis and running for years, bugs are there. Any method to help detect suspicious code, even if it produces amount of false positive, must be embraced of those who care about quality. New toolchains, new scanners, new architectures all can help to improve quality to make sure great service is provided to users. In Gentoo language, all these issues should be detected for selected packages by non-stable users, on architecture and permutations that upstream do not have access to, and to help upstream to filter false positives and find the positives ones. Even one case of funding real issue is sufficient to justify the maintenance costs, once again for selected packages in which upstream following strict quality policy and downstream follows. Once policy is applied, the amount of noise is very little, toolchain evolution is not as it was 10 years ago. Regards, Alon
