Hi Daniel,
On 8/15/18 9:34 AM, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> 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;
>
Yeah, I agree. I can send a patch for that.
Thanks for the feedback.
--
Gustavo
>
> 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
