On 7/19/19 3:14 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> GCC9 is confused by this comment when building with CFLAG
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2:
>
> hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c: In function ‘pflash_write’:
> hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c:574:16: error: this statement may fall through
> [-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=]
> 574 | if (boff == 0x55 && cmd == 0x98) {
> | ^
> hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c:581:9: note: here
> 581 | default:
> | ^~~~~~~
> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>
> Rewrite the comment using 'fall through' which is recognized by
> GCC and static analyzers.
>
> Reported-by: Stefan Weil <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]>
> ---
> hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c b/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c
> index f68837a449..42886f6af5 100644
> --- a/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c
> +++ b/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c
> @@ -577,7 +577,7 @@ static void pflash_write(void *opaque, hwaddr offset,
> uint64_t value,
> pfl->cmd = 0x98;
> return;
> }
> - /* No break here */
> + /* fall through */
> default:
> DPRINTF("%s: invalid write for command %02x\n",
> __func__, pfl->cmd);
>
Queued to pflash/next, thanks.
