On 10/10/2017 3:31 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 03:27:11PM -0400, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
On 10/6/2017 5:32 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
Avoid that gcc 7 reports the following warning when building with W=1:
warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c
index d80911d4abb7..5927ee4e57ca 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c
@@ -2808,6 +2808,7 @@ int ib_send_cm_mra(struct ib_cm_id *cm_id,
msg_response = CM_MSG_RESPONSE_OTHER;
break;
}
+ /* fall through */
default:
ret = -EINVAL;
goto error1;
So adding the comment is enough to make gcc shut up? Or are you just
annotating the code so it's obvious it was intentional?
GCC is looking for the specific comment.
---
-Wimplicit-fallthrough warns when a switch case falls through.
This warning has five different levels. The compiler is able to parse a wide range of fallthrough comments,
depending on the level. It also handles control-flow statements, such as ifs.
It's possible to suppress the warning by either adding a fallthrough comment,
or by using a null statement: __attribute__ ((fallthrough)); (C, C++),
or [[fallthrough]]; (C++17), or [[gnu::fallthrough]]; (C++11/C++14).
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-7/changes.html
Thanks
Ah, makes sense now, thanks Leon.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
