Nikolay Sivov wrote: > On 2/23/2011 19:56, Michael Stefaniuc wrote: >> Nikolay Sivov wrote: >>> On 2/23/2011 19:28, Amine Khaldi wrote: >>>> CIDs 1581 and 1583. >>>> @@ -1852,6 +1852,7 @@ COMBOEX_EditWndProc (HWND hwnd, UINT uMsg, >>>> WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam, >>>> >>>> case VK_UP: >>>> step = -1; >>>> + break; >>>> case VK_DOWN: >>>> /* by default, step is 1 */ >>>> oldItem = SendMessageW (infoPtr->hwndSelf, CB_GETCURSEL, >>>> 0, 0); >>> This is wrong. >>> >>>> @@ -2297,6 +2297,7 @@ static LRESULT >>>> TOOLBAR_Cust_AvailDragListNotification(const CUSTDLG_INFO *custIn >>>> TOOLBAR_Cust_AddButton(custInfo, hwnd, nIndexFrom, >>>> nIndexTo); >>>> } >>>> } >>>> + break; >>>> case DL_CANCELDRAG: >>>> /* Clear drag arrow */ >>>> DrawInsert(hwnd, hwndList, -1); >>> Why? Looks to me it's fine to clear on dropped case too. Coverity is a >>> bit paranoid about missed breaks. >> A missing break is not trivial to detect; especially if something is >> done in a specific case. That's why Wine has a ton of "/* fall through >> */" annotations. IMHO they should be added here too . > Well, there's no third option basing on code - report all or report > none, cause you can't figure out automatically is it ok to fall or not. > A comment you mean is kind of suppression sign for checker?. Speaking I don't really care about checkers but about people reading the code. Adding code to silence a checker is bad taste; adding a comment to improve the readability of the code is good.
> about this particular case, I have a better comboex fix in mind, and for > toolbar I think it's fine to add a comment. Cool, thanks. bye michael