GCC9 is confused by this comment when building with
CFLAG -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2:
hw/display/tcx.c: In function ‘tcx_dac_writel’:
hw/display/tcx.c:453:26: error: this statement may fall through
[-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=]
453 | s->dac_index = (s->dac_index + 1) & 0xff; /* Index
autoincrement */
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hw/display/tcx.c:454:9: note: here
454 | default:
| ^~~~~~~
hw/display/tcx.c: In function ‘tcx_dac_readl’:
hw/display/tcx.c:412:22: error: this statement may fall through
[-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=]
412 | s->dac_index = (s->dac_index + 1) & 0xff; /* Index
autoincrement */
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hw/display/tcx.c:413:5: note: here
413 | default:
| ^~~~~~~
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
Add the missing fall through comments.
Fixes: 55d7bfe22
Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]>
---
Cc: Olivier Danet <[email protected]>
Cc: Mark Cave-Ayland <[email protected]>
---
hw/display/tcx.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/hw/display/tcx.c b/hw/display/tcx.c
index 14e829d3fa..abbeb30284 100644
--- a/hw/display/tcx.c
+++ b/hw/display/tcx.c
@@ -410,6 +410,7 @@ static uint64_t tcx_dac_readl(void *opaque, hwaddr addr,
case 2:
val = s->b[s->dac_index] << 24;
s->dac_index = (s->dac_index + 1) & 0xff; /* Index autoincrement */
+ /* fall through */
default:
s->dac_state = 0;
break;
@@ -451,6 +452,7 @@ static void tcx_dac_writel(void *opaque, hwaddr addr,
uint64_t val,
s->b[index] = val >> 24;
update_palette_entries(s, index, index + 1);
s->dac_index = (s->dac_index + 1) & 0xff; /* Index autoincrement */
+ /* fall through */
default:
s->dac_state = 0;
break;
--
2.21.0
