On 05/08/18 05:14, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
Addresses-Coverity-ID: 115090 ("Missing break in switch")
Addresses-Coverity-ID: 115091 ("Missing break in switch")
Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114700 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gust...@embeddedor.com>
Adding fall through isn't wrong but its reasonable to ask why there is a
complex hand unrolled loop here in the first place (and doubly so
without a comment). The whole switch statement would be much clear
expressed as:
for (j=0; j<bytesperword; j++)
*c++ = printable_char(*cp++);
addr += bytesperword;
Daniel.
---
kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_main.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_main.c b/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_main.c
index 2ddfce8..2249645 100644
--- a/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_main.c
+++ b/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_main.c
@@ -1545,13 +1545,16 @@ static void kdb_md_line(const char *fmtstr, unsigned
long addr,
*c++ = printable_char(*cp++);
*c++ = printable_char(*cp++);
addr += 4;
+ /* fall through */
case 4:
*c++ = printable_char(*cp++);
*c++ = printable_char(*cp++);
addr += 2;
+ /* fall through */
case 2:
*c++ = printable_char(*cp++);
addr++;
+ /* fall through */
case 1:
*c++ = printable_char(*cp++);
addr++;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Kgdb-bugreport mailing list
Kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kgdb-bugreport
