On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > These patches either mark implicit fallthroughs in case statements > or (in a few cases) remove them by putting in an explicit 'break' > or 'return' rather than relying on the one in the following case. > There is no behaviour change for any of these patches, and in all > cases I've examined the code and am happy that the behaviour is > intentional and correct.
Would this be material for 1.4? > > This isn't intended to be a comprehensive patchset (or even a > comprehensive patchset for the ARM related files); it's just a > set of half a dozen changes for files which I care about and where > the existing behaviour was definitely correct. > > I'm not a fan of the code pattern used in the omap and pxa2xx > code of incrementing an index and then falling through to an > array access, but it doesn't seem sufficiently ugly to be worth > rewriting. > > Peter Maydell (6): > hw/arm_sysctl.c: Add missing 'break' statements > hw/omap1.c: Add fallthrough markers and breaks > hw/omap_dma, hw/omap_spi: Explicitly mark fallthroughs > hw/pflash_cfi02.c: Mark deliberate fallthrough > hw/smc91c111: Add explicit 'return' rather than relying on > fallthrough > hw/pxa2xx_timer: Explicitly mark fallthroughs > > hw/arm_sysctl.c | 2 ++ > hw/omap1.c | 3 +++ > hw/omap_dma.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > hw/omap_spi.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > hw/pflash_cfi02.c | 1 + > hw/pxa2xx_timer.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > hw/smc91c111.c | 1 + > 7 files changed, 90 insertions(+) > > -- > 1.7.9.5 >
