search for: intel_p5_mcheck_init

...that stupidity. If you can't, please send email from a non-Red Hat email address. I don't understand why this is a useful warning to fix. What actual problem is caused by the code below? > return and break > > switch (c->x86_vendor) { > case X86_VENDOR_INTEL: > intel_p5_mcheck_init(c); > return 1; > - break; Sure, it's unnecessary, but it's not masking a bug. It's not unclear. Why do we want to enable this warning?

...-next, allyesconfig on x86_64. The method of fixing was to look for warnings where the preceding statement was a simple statement and by inspection made the subsequent break unneeded. In order of frequency these look like return and break switch (c->x86_vendor) { case X86_VENDOR_INTEL: intel_p5_mcheck_init(c); return 1; - break; goto and break default: operation = 0; /* make gcc happy */ goto fail_response; - break; break and break case COLOR_SPACE_SRGB: /* by pass */ REG_SET(OUTPUT_CSC_CONTROL, 0, OUTPUT_CSC_GRPH_MODE, 0); break; - break; The exception to the s...

...-next, allyesconfig on x86_64. The method of fixing was to look for warnings where the preceding statement was a simple statement and by inspection made the subsequent break unneeded. In order of frequency these look like return and break switch (c->x86_vendor) { case X86_VENDOR_INTEL: intel_p5_mcheck_init(c); return 1; - break; goto and break default: operation = 0; /* make gcc happy */ goto fail_response; - break; break and break case COLOR_SPACE_SRGB: /* by pass */ REG_SET(OUTPUT_CSC_CONTROL, 0, OUTPUT_CSC_GRPH_MODE, 0); break; - break; The exception to the s...