Re: [RFC PATCH 00/78] Strict disable implicit fallthrough

2023-10-16 Thread Manos Pitsidianakis
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023, 18:04 Peter Maydell, wrote: > On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 15:58, Manos Pitsidianakis > wrote: > > > > Hello Peter, > > > > On Mon, 16 Oct 2023, 17:13 Peter Maydell, > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 at 13:42, Markus Armbruster > wrote: > >> > > >> > Emmanouil

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/78] Strict disable implicit fallthrough

2023-10-16 Thread Peter Maydell
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 15:58, Manos Pitsidianakis wrote: > > Hello Peter, > > On Mon, 16 Oct 2023, 17:13 Peter Maydell, wrote: >> >> On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 at 13:42, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> > >> > Emmanouil Pitsidianakis writes: >> > >> > > Hello, >> > > >> > > This RFC is inspired by the

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/78] Strict disable implicit fallthrough

2023-10-16 Thread Manos Pitsidianakis
Hello Peter, On Mon, 16 Oct 2023, 17:13 Peter Maydell, wrote: > On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 at 13:42, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > > > Emmanouil Pitsidianakis writes: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > This RFC is inspired by the kernel's move to -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 > > > back in 2019.[0] > > > We

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/78] Strict disable implicit fallthrough

2023-10-16 Thread Peter Maydell
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 at 13:42, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > Emmanouil Pitsidianakis writes: > > > Hello, > > > > This RFC is inspired by the kernel's move to -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 > > back in 2019.[0] > > We take one step (or two) further by increasing it to 5 which rejects > > fall through

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/78] Strict disable implicit fallthrough

2023-10-13 Thread Daniel P . Berrangé
On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 03:51:22PM +0300, Manos Pitsidianakis wrote: > On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 11:14, "Daniel P. Berrangé" wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 10:47:04AM +0300, Emmanouil Pitsidianakis wrote: > > > > > > Main questions this RFC poses > > > = > > > > > > -

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/78] Strict disable implicit fallthrough

2023-10-13 Thread Manos Pitsidianakis
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 11:14, "Daniel P. Berrangé" wrote: On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 10:47:04AM +0300, Emmanouil Pitsidianakis wrote: Main questions this RFC poses = - Is this change desirable and net-positive. Yes, IMHO it is worth standardizing on use of the

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/78] Strict disable implicit fallthrough

2023-10-13 Thread BALATON Zoltan
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023, Emmanouil Pitsidianakis wrote: Hello, This RFC is inspired by the kernel's move to -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 back in 2019.[0] We take one step (or two) further by increasing it to 5 which rejects fall through comments and requires an attribute statement. [0]:

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/78] Strict disable implicit fallthrough

2023-10-13 Thread Daniel P . Berrangé
On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 10:47:04AM +0300, Emmanouil Pitsidianakis wrote: > > Main questions this RFC poses > = > > - Is this change desirable and net-positive. Yes, IMHO it is worth standardizing on use of the attribute. The allowed use of comments was a nice thing