Kees Cook wrote:
> > Can we fix the compiler, please, to say that *every* case (perhaps barring
> > the last) is expected to fall through?
I should say "... so that we can say that *every* case ...".
David
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 2:28 AM David Howells wrote:
> Kees Cook wrote:
>
> > These look good to me. Gets us another step to finishing this. :)
>
> Can we fix the compiler, please, to say that *every* case (perhaps barring the
> last) is expected to fall through?
Right now we're targeting both
Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
Please fix the compiler so that you can annotate a switch-statement to say
that every case must fall through (except, perhaps, the last).
> /* extract the FID array and its count in two steps */
> + /* fall through */
> case 1:
Kees Cook wrote:
> These look good to me. Gets us another step to finishing this. :)
Can we fix the compiler, please, to say that *every* case (perhaps barring the
last) is expected to fall through?
David
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 2:02 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Notice that in many cases I placed a /* Fall through */ comment
> at the bottom of the case, which what GCC is expecting
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
Notice that in many cases I placed a /* Fall through */ comment
at the bottom of the case, which what GCC is expecting to find.
In other cases I had to tweak a bit the format of the
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
Notice that in many cases I placed a /* Fall through */ comment
at the bottom of the case, which what GCC is expecting to find.
In other cases I had to tweak a bit the format of the
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
Notice that in many cases I placed a /* Fall through */ comment
at the bottom of the case, which what GCC is expecting to find.
In other cases I had to tweak a bit the format of the
Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> + /* Fall through */
> no_msw:
> /* extract the returned data length */
> case 2:
That would appear to be added in the wrong place. The fall-through is after
the no_msw label.
> +
> + /* Fall through */
>
Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> + /* Fall through */
> no_msw:
> /* extract the returned data length */
> case 2:
That would appear to be added in the wrong place. The fall-through is after
the no_msw label.
> +
> + /* Fall through */
>
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
Warning level 2 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva
---
fs/afs/cmservice.c | 10 --
fs/afs/file.c | 2 ++
fs/afs/fsclient.c | 41
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
Warning level 2 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva
---
fs/afs/cmservice.c | 10 --
fs/afs/file.c | 2 ++
fs/afs/fsclient.c | 41
12 matches
Mail list logo
