From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gustavo A. R. Silva Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:02:34 -0600 Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang In-Reply-To: <3e0bbb1644fe53d79322c2feb28ccaf3e20c0e94.camel@perches.com> References: <3e0bbb1644fe53d79322c2feb28ccaf3e20c0e94.camel@perches.com> Message-ID: <9f986394-125a-81f7-7696-fe1a9f4eb4f5@embeddedor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org List-ID: On 11/20/20 12:28, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2020-11-20 at 12:21 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in >> order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang. >> >> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, explicitly >> add multiple break/goto/return/fallthrough statements instead of just >> letting the code fall through to the next case. >> >> Notice that in order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, this >> change[1] is meant to be reverted at some point. So, this patch helps >> to move in that direction. > > This was a bit hard to parse for a second or three. > > Thanks Gustavo. > > How was this change done? I audited case by case in order to determine the best fit for each situation. Depending on the surrounding logic, sometimes it makes more sense a goto or a fallthrough rather than merely a break. Thanks -- Gustavo