From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7ABB0146A6B for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2024 10:11:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724667104; cv=none; b=g5FP6I8eNc/ej0PzE6Q5hDx5joWOkXi92P5FTPSO7wSZlIMKaJ2xDfcUJYtRcvfvt1xyFhwHowln2qr8h2Z2i6arau1otNEMfeVbcRAJYTG/G24XSDVAiVkqLVQGwb/76+Uy5ub7Iquh1S7DBsXpMd48OA3uJAyd0ayM4VAoW98= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724667104; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6DC/pljILmal3vJXTXzPzWMCUvoNsIiuwQPiYZAu2to=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=ZoFm1vGJJxLzeqsRXJm1DuVXaFxWNlBQg78h686+ByL5M8WATn0Ekan7wyVBb5KwpyZPhvzmq9wSgw+CLNFrun3QQ3wTTTKCzfn0QX+fkw6i9Jcb4mcHVU2KSTEJmRGBqQIupklxtQff5S6KDnkSxluGvuVbm13I7NEp4hDX2SE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=jNEBZCu1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="jNEBZCu1" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1664BC51406 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2024 10:11:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1724667104; bh=6DC/pljILmal3vJXTXzPzWMCUvoNsIiuwQPiYZAu2to=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=jNEBZCu1aQ76TlHBBh/sw6lti2lH+c7tVDXQMchH2MJkfjqpOI6RuTV77ex2DH9X7 c3YpViWuxlp+RGjnljU2nqSI0PgpVjJv0usbotGaRD77mjNceKQBlBd7+3NI4h+3Cr EQCVYNMinrBLKWt0by3hldq3OtsvDNuf5uit9oNTWjicCY/TFynJMCo0Lpi95O/FQ+ fFW2Ccs/J7nWfejFpbiWt3og8cK5Y7i7QJAK67qxk9mR/aBPRYtpe/C2MLUDPWF83y PlryJmQ4+FQdw0g056GMccNF8Mf2OgzKzXPdAKyXpUFH5QIRcN4mPA7k2byfNQ+knH EaffMrI3E44dA== Received: by aws-us-west-2-korg-bugzilla-1.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 06D43C53B7E; Mon, 26 Aug 2024 10:11:44 +0000 (UTC) From: bugzilla-daemon@kernel.org To: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org Subject: [Bug 219192] drivers/iio/imu/adis16400.o: warning: objtool: adis16400_write_raw() falls through to next function adis16400_show_flash_count() Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 10:11:43 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: AssignedTo drivers_iio@kernel-bugs.kernel.org X-Bugzilla-Product: Drivers X-Bugzilla-Component: IIO X-Bugzilla-Version: 2.5 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jic23@kernel.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: drivers_iio@kernel-bugs.kernel.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D219192 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Cameron (jic23@kernel.org) --- On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 09:35:37 +0000 bugzilla-daemon@kernel.org wrote: > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D219192 >=20 > Bug ID: 219192 > Summary: drivers/iio/imu/adis16400.o: warning: objtool: > adis16400_write_raw() falls through to next function > adis16400_show_flash_count() > Product: Drivers > Version: 2.5 > Hardware: All > OS: Linux > Status: NEW > Severity: normal > Priority: P3 > Component: IIO > Assignee: drivers_iio@kernel-bugs.kernel.org > Reporter: ionut_n2001@yahoo.com > Regression: No >=20 > drivers/iio/imu/adis16400.o: warning: objtool: adis16400_write_raw() falls > through to next function adis16400_show_flash_count() >=20 > Kernel: 6.11.0-rc5 vanilla > GCC compiler: gcc (Debian 14.1.0-5) 14.1.0 I think this is a false positive. None of the cases of the switch statement fail to return and there are unreachable() markings that this check seems to not be able to see which were added to try and point out to the compiler that it was failing to identify they were not possible to get to. We could add some returns the unreachable paths to work around this warning I suppose. Maybe we are doing something wrong otherwise? I'd like more eyes on this incase I'm just missing something obvious. Jonathan > --=20 You may reply to this email to add a comment. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug.=