Jes Sorensen writes:
> On 10/11/2017 04:41 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Jes Sorensen writes:
>>
>>> On 10/10/2017 03:30 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are
On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 12:54 +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Joe Perches
> > Sent: 11 October 2017 11:21
> > On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 14:30 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> > > where we are expecting to fall through.
> >
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva
wrote:
> Quoting Jes Sorensen :
>> On 10/11/2017 04:41 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>> Jes Sorensen writes:
On 10/10/2017 03:30 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
>
Hi Jes,
Quoting Jes Sorensen :
On 10/11/2017 04:41 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
Jes Sorensen writes:
On 10/10/2017 03:30 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to
On 10/11/2017 04:41 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
Jes Sorensen writes:
On 10/10/2017 03:30 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
While this isn't harmful, to me this looks
From: Joe Perches
> Sent: 11 October 2017 11:21
> On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 14:30 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> > where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> perhaps use Arnaldo's idea:
>
>
On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 14:30 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
perhaps use Arnaldo's idea:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/9/845
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/10/485
Jes Sorensen writes:
> On 10/10/2017 03:30 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> While this isn't harmful, to me this looks like pointless patch churn
> for
On 10/10/2017 12:35 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 10/10/2017 03:30 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> While this isn't harmful, to me this looks like pointless patch churn
> for zero
On 10/10/2017 03:30 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
While this isn't harmful, to me this looks like pointless patch churn
for zero gain and it's just ugly.
Jes
Cc: Jes Sorensen
10 matches
Mail list logo