On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 20:08:31 +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > > On 10/3/18 6:19 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:08:07 +0200, > > Takashi Iwai wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:38:36 +0200, > >> Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > >>> > >>> Replace "fallthru" with a proper "fall through" annotation. > >>> > >>> This fix is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling > >>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Thanks, applied. > > > > BTW, does "fallthru" really cause a warning? I thought it's also > > accepted as well as "fall-through". At least, my gcc-8 doesn't give a > > warning with "fallthru". > > > > You are correct. It does not trigger a warning. > > There are about 50 similar instances in the whole codebase. And, as they > are just a few, what I'm trying to do is to replace them with the most > commonly used form: "fall through" Hm, then I'm not sure whether it's worth for further similar replacements. A term "fallthru" is also very commonly used, and the compiler knows it, too, so why bother to rewrite? I don't mean to revert the already applied changes, but maybe better to concentrate on fixing other real bugs (and/or real warnings). thanks, Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
