From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Finn Thain Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 09:54:48 +1100 (AEDT) Subject: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang In-Reply-To: References: <20201120105344.4345c14e@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <202011201129.B13FDB3C@keescook> <20201120115142.292999b2@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <202011220816.8B6591A@keescook> <9b57fd4914b46f38d54087d75e072d6e947cb56d.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Message-ID: List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun, 22 Nov 2020, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > It isn't that much effort, isn't it? Plus we need to take into account > the future mistakes that it might prevent, too. We should also take into account optimisim about future improvements in tooling. > So even if there were zero problems found so far, it is still a positive > change. > It is if you want to spin it that way. > I would agree if these changes were high risk, though; but they are > almost trivial. > This is trivial: case 1: this(); + fallthrough; case 2: that(); But what we inevitably get is changes like this: case 3: this(); + break; case 4: hmmm(); Why? Mainly to silence the compiler. Also because the patch author argued successfully that they had found a theoretical bug, often in mature code. But is anyone keeping score of the regressions? If unreported bugs count, what about unreported regressions? > Cheers, > Miguel >