Hi Jes,
Quoting Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@xxxxxxxxx>:
On 10/11/2017 04:41 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 10/10/2017 03:30 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
While this isn't harmful, to me this looks like pointless patch churn
for zero gain and it's just ugly.
In general I find it useful to mark fall through cases. And it's just a
comment with two words, so they cannot hurt your eyes that much.
I don't see them being harmful in the code, but I don't see them of
much use either. If it happened as part of natural code development,
fine. My objection is to people running around doing this
systematically causing patch churn for little to zero gain.
Jes
I understand that you think this is of zero gain for you, but as
Florian Fainelli pointed out:
"That is the canonical way to tell static analyzers and compilers that
fall throughs are wanted and not accidental mistakes in the code. For
people that deal with these kinds of errors, it's quite helpful, unless
you suggest disabling that particular GCC warning specific for that
file/directory?"
this is very helpful for people working on fixing issues reported by
static analyzers. It saves a huge amount of time when dealing with
False Positives. Also, there are cases when an apparently intentional
fall-through turns out to be an actual missing break or continue.
So there is an ongoing effort to detect such cases and avoid them to
show up in the future by at least warning people about a potential
issue in their code. And this is helpful for everybody.
Thanks
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva
