"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsi...@embeddedor.com> writes:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Notice that in this particular case I replaced "...drop on through"
> comments with a proper "fall through" comment on its own line, which
> is what GCC is expecting to find.
Sounds to me like GCC is the wrong tool for this. But I would of course
not mind if it was *just* the text. However, as your patch cleary
shows, the simplified logic leads to real problems:
> @@ -1819,8 +1819,8 @@ static void process_rcvd_data(struct edgeport_serial
> *edge_serial,
> edge_serial->rxState = EXPECT_DATA;
> break;
> }
> - /* Else, drop through */
> }
> + /* fall through */
> case EXPECT_DATA: /* Expect data */
> if (bufferLength < edge_serial->rxBytesRemaining) {
> rxLen = bufferLength;
The original comment clearly marked a *conditional* fall through at the
correct place. Your patch makes it appear as if there is an
unconditional fall through here. There is not. The fallthrough only
applies to one of a number of nested if blocks. There are no less than
3 break statements in the same case block.
Not a big deal maybe, just as the lack of any "fall through" comment
isn't a big deal in the first place. But this change is clearly making
this code harder to read, and the change is therefore harmful IMHO.
If you can't make -Wimplicit-fallthrough work without removing such
precise fallthrough markings, then my proposal is to drop it and use
some other tool.
Bjørn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
