Re: [PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs

2019-02-14 Thread Gustavo A. R. Silva
On 2/11/19 3:03 AM, nicolas.fe...@microchip.com wrote: > On 08/02/2019 at 19:44, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: >> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch >> cases where we are expecting to fall through. >> >> Notice that, in this particular case, the /* fall through */ >>

Re: [PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs

2019-02-11 Thread Nicolas.Ferre
On 08/02/2019 at 19:44, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch > cases where we are expecting to fall through. > > Notice that, in this particular case, the /* fall through */ > comments are placed at the bottom of the case statement, which >

Re: [PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs

2019-02-09 Thread Sergei Shtylyov
On 02/08/2019 09:55 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: >> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch >> cases where we are expecting to fall through. >> >> Notice that, in this particular case, the /* fall through */ >> comments are placed at the bottom of the case statement, which >>

Re: [PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs

2019-02-08 Thread Sergei Shtylyov
Hello! On 02/08/2019 09:44 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch > cases where we are expecting to fall through. > > Notice that, in this particular case, the /* fall through */ > comments are placed at the bottom of the case statement,

[PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs

2019-02-08 Thread Gustavo A. R. Silva
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Notice that, in this particular case, the /* fall through */ comments are placed at the bottom of the case statement, which is what GCC is expecting to find. Warning level 3 was used: