On Sun, 22 Nov 2020, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>
> It isn't that much effort, isn't it? Plus we need to take into account
> the future mistakes that it might prevent, too.
We should also take into account optimisim about future improvements in
tooling.
> So even if there were zero problems found so far, it is still a positive
> change.
>
It is if you want to spin it that way.
> I would agree if these changes were high risk, though; but they are
> almost trivial.
>
This is trivial:
case 1:
this();
+ fallthrough;
case 2:
that();
But what we inevitably get is changes like this:
case 3:
this();
+ break;
case 4:
hmmm();
Why? Mainly to silence the compiler. Also because the patch author argued
successfully that they had found a theoretical bug, often in mature code.
But is anyone keeping score of the regressions? If unreported bugs count,
what about unreported regressions?
> Cheers,
> Miguel
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
