similar to: clang 10 -Wimplicit-fallthrough

If I compile libFLAC with GCC 7.1 I see many warnings like lpc.c: In function 'FLAC__lpc_compute_residual_from_qlp_coefficients': lpc.c:489:18: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] case 32: sum += qlp_coeff[31] * data[i-32]; ~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lpc.c:490:5: note: here case 31: sum += qlp_coeff[30] * data[i-31];

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. This patch fixes the following warning: drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c:1434:53: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough.

Hi, Please drop this, as I have included this fix into the following patch, which addresses all the expected fall-throughs in drivers/gpu/drm: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1042856/ Thanks -- Gustavo On 2/11/19 12:58 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch > cases where we are expecting to fall through. > > This

On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > 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.

On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:30:40 -0800 Kees Cook wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in > > > order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang. > > > > > > In preparation to enable

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:30:40 -0800 Kees Cook wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > > This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in > > > > order to enable

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:30:40 -0800 Kees Cook wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > > This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in > > > > order to enable

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:30:40 -0800 Kees Cook wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > > This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in > > > > order to enable

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]

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]

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]

Great! Thanks everyone for the input, I'm going to start splitting up the patch. I'll send out the non-mechanical parts separately. On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:03 PM Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Oct 31, 2018, at 2:24 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > Alex Kornienko proposed enabling this warning back in 2012 here: >

Hi llvmdev, llvm-commits, There was a discussion on this topic a while ago, and now I've decided to make a formal proposal and post it here. I propose to add the LLVM_FALLTHROUGH macro for specifying intended fall-through locations between switch cases. *INTRODUCTION* The switch construct of C/C++ languages allows fall-throughs between switch labels when control flow is not directed

I am nuilding that now. CC=clang CXX=clang++ cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=$HOME/opt/llvm11-git \ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release \ -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON \ -DLLVM_ENABLE_EH=ON \ -DLLVM_ENABLE_RTTI=ON \ -DLLVM_HOST_TRIPLE=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu \ -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="AMDGPU;MSP430;WebAssembly;X86" \

Hi, Using master at b0a1c0b72c9c61f8b0a223e08f43498abb64f5e8, I cannot build LLVM. I configured with: CC=clang CXX=clang++ cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=$HOME/opt/llvm11-git \ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release \ -DLLVM_BUILD_LLVM_DYLIB=ON \ -DLLVM_LINK_LLVM_DYLIB=ON \ -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=OFF \ -DLLVM_ENABLE_EH=ON \ -DLLVM_ENABLE_RTTI=ON \

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 Notice that, in some cases, the code comment is modified in accordance with what GCC is expecting to find. This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo at

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> >> > <dropping llvm-commits> >> > >> > On Jul 2, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Alexander

Ping. On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:

https://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/rc/dovecot-2.2.32.rc1.tar.gz https://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/rc/dovecot-2.2.32.rc1.tar.gz.sig There are various changes in this release that can be used to significantly reduce disk IO with: 1) NFS storage especially, but I guess also other remote filesystems and even some with local disks 2) When mail storage and INDEX storage are separated * imapc: Info-level

https://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/rc/dovecot-2.2.32.rc1.tar.gz https://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/rc/dovecot-2.2.32.rc1.tar.gz.sig There are various changes in this release that can be used to significantly reduce disk IO with: 1) NFS storage especially, but I guess also other remote filesystems and even some with local disks 2) When mail storage and INDEX storage are separated * imapc: Info-level