On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 6:49 PM Eugeniu Rosca <ero...@de.adit-jv.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 05:01:09PM +0300, Sam Protsenko wrote: > > > > diff --git a/cmd/bcb.c b/cmd/bcb.c > > > > index 2bd5a744deb5..3b1c7434e287 100644 > > > > --- a/cmd/bcb.c > > > > +++ b/cmd/bcb.c > > > > @@ -46,9 +46,6 @@ static int bcb_is_misused(int argc, char *const > > > > argv[]) > > > > > > > > switch (cmd) { > > > > case BCB_CMD_LOAD: > > > > - if (argc != 3) > > > > - goto err; > > > > - break; > > > > Wait, one note here... Can you please add /* Fall through */ comment > > here? I remember that new GCC was complaining on cases without break > > that don't have such comment or corresponding fall-through attribute. > > I can see that U-Boot build doesn't emit any warnings for that case, > > but I think such comment would be useful anyway. > > > > > > case BCB_CMD_FIELD_SET: > > > > if (argc != 3) > > > > goto err; > > Both U-Boot and Linux enable [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] on "make W=1". > Regardless of U-Boot and Linux, gcc doesn't seem to report any warning > when two case statements are stacked on top of each other without any > logic in between. The warning is only triggered if there is minimal > processing done in between (e.g. a dummy printf call). > > If we still want the /* fallthrough */ comment, I will add it in the > next patch revision. >
Understood. Ok, let's not worry about this then. My R-b tag stands. > -- > Best Regards, > Eugeniu. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot