[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <787e9aeb-34e0-3075-d816-7963cca61020@embeddedor.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 20:08:31 +0200
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Cc: Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ALSA: intel8x0: Fix fall-through annotations
On 10/3/18 6:19 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:08:07 +0200,
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:38:36 +0200,
>> Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>>
>>> Replace "fallthru" with a proper "fall through" annotation.
>>>
>>> This fix is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
>>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
>>
>> Thanks, applied.
>
> BTW, does "fallthru" really cause a warning? I thought it's also
> accepted as well as "fall-through". At least, my gcc-8 doesn't give a
> warning with "fallthru".
>
You are correct. It does not trigger a warning.
There are about 50 similar instances in the whole codebase. And, as they
are just a few, what I'm trying to do is to replace them with the most
commonly used form: "fall through"
Thanks
--
Gustavo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists