On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gust...@embeddedor.com> wrote: > On 06/20/2018 02:06 PM, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 08:31:00AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: >>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases >>> where we are expecting to fall through. >>> >>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1470102 ("Missing break in switch") >> >> Any other advantage besides coverity? >> Can't we address it by marking as "Intentional" on the tool? >> > > Yes. The advantage of this is that it will eventually allows to enable > -Wimplicit-fallthrough, hence, enabling the compiler to trigger a > warning, which will force us to double check if we are actually missing > a break before committing the code.
I applaud the efforts. Since you're doing the comment changes, do you have an idea what -Wimplicit-fallthrough=N level is being considered for kernel? >> I'm afraid there will be so many more places to add fallthrough >> marks.... >> > > Oh yeah, there are around 1000 similar places in the whole codebase. > There is an ongoing effort to review each case. Months ago, it used to > be around 1500 of these cases. We use our own MISSING_CASE() to indicate stuff that's not supposed to happen, or to be implemented, etc. and in many cases the fallthrough is normal. I wonder if we could embed __attribute__ ((fallthrough)) in there to tackle all of these without a comment. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx