kees added a comment. The kernel's [[ https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html#implicit-switch-case-fall-through
| stance ]] on switch statements reads: | | All switch/case blocks must end in one of: break; fallthrough; continue; goto <label>; return [expression]; And we've had multiple real bugs now of the "missing break before default return" style: https://git.kernel.org/linus/291ddeb621e4a9f1ced8302a777fbd7fbda058c6 So, from the kernel's perspective, please don't make `-Wimplicit-fallthrough` more permissive -- we're finding real bugs. :) And to speak to another example in the thread: // drivers/hid/usbhid/hid-core.c 490 case -ESHUTDOWN: /* unplug */ 491 unplug = 1; 492 case -EILSEQ: /* protocol error or unplug */ // -Wimplicit-fallthrough...how?! 493 case -EPROTO: /* protocol error or unplug */ 494 case -ECONNRESET: /* unlink */ 495 case -ENOENT: 496 case -EPIPE: /* report not available */ 497 break; I think this should warn too. While this won't turn into a "missing break" error, there's no way to know (from looking at code) what the _intent_ is here. Should it have done "return?" Why is "break" assumed to be safe here, etc? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D91895/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D91895 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
