[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <s5hy3beop4m.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 20:34:49 +0200
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
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 Wed, 03 Oct 2018 20:08:31 +0200,
Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
>
>
> 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"
Hm, then I'm not sure whether it's worth for further similar
replacements. A term "fallthru" is also very commonly used, and the
compiler knows it, too, so why bother to rewrite?
I don't mean to revert the already applied changes, but maybe better
to concentrate on fixing other real bugs (and/or real warnings).
thanks,
Takashi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists