On 7/22/19 7:43 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> 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.
>
Are you queueing everything or just this one patch? It would be a little
inconvenient to split a series up like that.
(Most other maintainers will, I believe, expect that with an "ACK" or
similar that someone else will stage the series.)
--js
