Re: [PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


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 

> 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:
+	fallthrough;
 case 2:

But what we inevitably get is changes like this:

 case 3:
+       break;
 case 4:

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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux File System Development]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Ext4 Filesystem]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux