Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. We do receive quite a lot these kind of cleanup patches found with various analysers and tools. I guess one could classify those as churn but I think the net result is still very much on the positive side. And this patch in particular seems useful for me and I think we should take it. -- Kalle Valo
