| Message ID | 20190719131425.10835-4-philmd@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Trivial switch 'fall through' comment fixes for GCC9 | expand |
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 at 14:14, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> wrote: > > GCC9 is confused by this comment when building with CFLAG > -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2: > > hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c: In function ‘pflash_write’: > hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c:574:16: error: this statement may fall through [-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=] > 574 | if (boff == 0x55 && cmd == 0x98) { > | ^ > hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c:581:9: note: here > 581 | default: > | ^~~~~~~ > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > > Rewrite the comment using 'fall through' which is recognized by > GCC and static analyzers. > > Reported-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de> > Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> > --- > hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c b/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c > index f68837a449..42886f6af5 100644 > --- a/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c > +++ b/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c > @@ -577,7 +577,7 @@ static void pflash_write(void *opaque, hwaddr offset, uint64_t value, > pfl->cmd = 0x98; > return; > } > - /* No break here */ > + /* fall through */ > default: > DPRINTF("%s: invalid write for command %02x\n", > __func__, pfl->cmd); > -- Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> thanks -- PMM
On 7/19/19 3:14 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > GCC9 is confused by this comment when building with CFLAG > -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2: > > hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c: In function ‘pflash_write’: > hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c:574:16: error: this statement may fall through [-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=] > 574 | if (boff == 0x55 && cmd == 0x98) { > | ^ > hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c:581:9: note: here > 581 | default: > | ^~~~~~~ > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > > Rewrite the comment using 'fall through' which is recognized by > GCC and static analyzers. > > Reported-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de> > Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> > --- > hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c b/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c > index f68837a449..42886f6af5 100644 > --- a/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c > +++ b/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c > @@ -577,7 +577,7 @@ static void pflash_write(void *opaque, hwaddr offset, uint64_t value, > pfl->cmd = 0x98; > return; > } > - /* No break here */ > + /* fall through */ > default: > DPRINTF("%s: invalid write for command %02x\n", > __func__, pfl->cmd); > Queued to pflash/next, thanks.
On 7/22/19 7:43 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 7/19/19 3:14 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> GCC9 is confused by this comment when building with CFLAG >> -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2: >> >> hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c: In function ‘pflash_write’: >> hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c:574:16: error: this statement may fall through [-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=] >> 574 | if (boff == 0x55 && cmd == 0x98) { >> | ^ >> hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c:581:9: note: here >> 581 | default: >> | ^~~~~~~ >> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors >> >> Rewrite the comment using 'fall through' which is recognized by >> GCC and static analyzers. >> >> Reported-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de> >> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> >> --- >> hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c b/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c >> index f68837a449..42886f6af5 100644 >> --- a/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c >> +++ b/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c >> @@ -577,7 +577,7 @@ static void pflash_write(void *opaque, hwaddr offset, uint64_t value, >> pfl->cmd = 0x98; >> return; >> } >> - /* No break here */ >> + /* fall through */ >> default: >> DPRINTF("%s: invalid write for command %02x\n", >> __func__, pfl->cmd); >> > > Queued to pflash/next, thanks. > Are you queueing everything or just this one patch? It would be a little inconvenient to split a series up like that. (Most other maintainers will, I believe, expect that with an "ACK" or similar that someone else will stage the series.) --js
On 7/25/19 2:27 AM, John Snow wrote: > On 7/22/19 7:43 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> On 7/19/19 3:14 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>> GCC9 is confused by this comment when building with CFLAG >>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2: >>> >>> hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c: In function ‘pflash_write’: >>> hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c:574:16: error: this statement may fall through [-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=] >>> 574 | if (boff == 0x55 && cmd == 0x98) { >>> | ^ >>> hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c:581:9: note: here >>> 581 | default: >>> | ^~~~~~~ >>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors >>> >>> Rewrite the comment using 'fall through' which is recognized by >>> GCC and static analyzers. >>> >>> Reported-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de> >>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c b/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c >>> index f68837a449..42886f6af5 100644 >>> --- a/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c >>> +++ b/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c >>> @@ -577,7 +577,7 @@ static void pflash_write(void *opaque, hwaddr offset, uint64_t value, >>> pfl->cmd = 0x98; >>> return; >>> } >>> - /* No break here */ >>> + /* fall through */ >>> default: >>> DPRINTF("%s: invalid write for command %02x\n", >>> __func__, pfl->cmd); >>> >> >> Queued to pflash/next, thanks. >> > > Are you queueing everything or just this one patch? It would be a little > inconvenient to split a series up like that. Oops I simply queued this particular one. > (Most other maintainers will, I believe, expect that with an "ACK" or > similar that someone else will stage the series.) I thought these are not critical bugfixes for 4.1, but since I had to do a pull request for pflash, I could include it. (I already noticed maintainers queueing particular patches from cleanup series). Next time I'll ping/wait. Regards, Phil.
diff --git a/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c b/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c index f68837a449..42886f6af5 100644 --- a/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c +++ b/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c @@ -577,7 +577,7 @@ static void pflash_write(void *opaque, hwaddr offset, uint64_t value, pfl->cmd = 0x98; return; } - /* No break here */ + /* fall through */ default: DPRINTF("%s: invalid write for command %02x\n", __func__, pfl->cmd);
GCC9 is confused by this comment when building with CFLAG -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2: hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c: In function ‘pflash_write’: hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c:574:16: error: this statement may fall through [-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=] 574 | if (boff == 0x55 && cmd == 0x98) { | ^ hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c:581:9: note: here 581 | default: | ^~~~~~~ cc1: all warnings being treated as errors Rewrite the comment using 'fall through' which is recognized by GCC and static analyzers. Reported-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> --- hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)