similar to: [PATCH net-next] virtio-net: mark expected switch fall-throughs

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 143119 Addresses-Coverity-ID: 143120 Addresses-Coverity-ID: 143121 Addresses-Coverity-ID: 143122 Addresses-Coverity-ID: 143123 Addresses-Coverity-ID: 143124 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva at embeddedor.com> ---

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1260018 Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1260019 Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1260022 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva at embeddedor.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/timing.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:08 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo at embeddedor.com> wrote: > > 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.

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

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can take this? Thanks -- Gustavo On 10/17/18 9:28 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases > where we are expecting to fall through. > > This patch aims to suppress 29 missing-break-in-switch false positives. > > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1456891 ("Missing break in switch") >

Got it, thanks. On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 06:55, Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo at embeddedor.com> wrote: > > 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

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.

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo at embeddedor.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/engine/disp/hdmi.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/engine/dma/usernv04.c | 1 + drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/engine/fifo/nv04.c | 2 ++

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

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. This patch aims to suppress 29 missing-break-in-switch false positives. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1456891 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1324063 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1324063 ("Missing break in switch")

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Cameron McInally <cameron.mcinally at nyu.edu>wrote: > Hey Alex, > > Sorry if this is a silly question... are you asking if anyone "wants the > functionality proposed" or "wants to write the code for the functionality > proposed"? > *-Wimplicit-fallthrough* diagnostic is already implemented, and the patch in this thread

Fix the following warning by adding a missing break: drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_abi16.c: In function ‘nouveau_abi16_ioctl_getparam’: drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_abi16.c:202:3: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] switch (device->info.platform) { ^~~~~~ drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_abi16.c:217:2: note: here case NOUVEAU_GETPARAM_FB_SIZE: ^~~~

This is Chris' call to make, imo. -j On Aug 22, 2012, at 3:59 PM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com> wrote: > Ping. > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com> wrote: > 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

Ping. On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>wrote: > 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

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

Hi, On 11/20/20 12:53, 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 -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, explicitly >> add multiple break/goto/return/fallthrough

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:

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