| Message ID | 20181003103836.GA21649@embeddedor.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ALSA: intel8x0: Fix fall-through annotations | expand |
On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:38:36 +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > Replace "fallthru" with a proper "fall through" annotation. > > This fix is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling > -Wimplicit-fallthrough > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> Thanks, applied. Takashi
On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:08:07 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:38:36 +0200, > Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > > Replace "fallthru" with a proper "fall through" annotation. > > > > This fix is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling > > -Wimplicit-fallthrough > > > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> > > Thanks, applied. BTW, does "fallthru" really cause a warning? I thought it's also accepted as well as "fall-through". At least, my gcc-8 doesn't give a warning with "fallthru". Takashi
On 10/3/18 6:19 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote: > On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:08:07 +0200, > Takashi Iwai wrote: >> >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:38:36 +0200, >> Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: >>> >>> Replace "fallthru" with a proper "fall through" annotation. >>> >>> This fix is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling >>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> >> >> Thanks, applied. > > BTW, does "fallthru" really cause a warning? I thought it's also > accepted as well as "fall-through". At least, my gcc-8 doesn't give a > warning with "fallthru". > You are correct. It does not trigger a warning. There are about 50 similar instances in the whole codebase. And, as they are just a few, what I'm trying to do is to replace them with the most commonly used form: "fall through" Thanks -- Gustavo
On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 20:08:31 +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > > On 10/3/18 6:19 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:08:07 +0200, > > Takashi Iwai wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:38:36 +0200, > >> Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > >>> > >>> Replace "fallthru" with a proper "fall through" annotation. > >>> > >>> This fix is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling > >>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> > >> > >> Thanks, applied. > > > > BTW, does "fallthru" really cause a warning? I thought it's also > > accepted as well as "fall-through". At least, my gcc-8 doesn't give a > > warning with "fallthru". > > > > You are correct. It does not trigger a warning. > > There are about 50 similar instances in the whole codebase. And, as they > are just a few, what I'm trying to do is to replace them with the most > commonly used form: "fall through" Hm, then I'm not sure whether it's worth for further similar replacements. A term "fallthru" is also very commonly used, and the compiler knows it, too, so why bother to rewrite? I don't mean to revert the already applied changes, but maybe better to concentrate on fixing other real bugs (and/or real warnings). thanks, Takashi
On 10/3/18 8:34 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote: >> >> You are correct. It does not trigger a warning. >> >> There are about 50 similar instances in the whole codebase. And, as they >> are just a few, what I'm trying to do is to replace them with the most >> commonly used form: "fall through" > > Hm, then I'm not sure whether it's worth for further similar > replacements. A term "fallthru" is also very commonly used, and the > compiler knows it, too, so why bother to rewrite? > Not that common actually. There are more than 2000 instances of "fall through" and just ~50 of "fallthru" and ~40 of "fall thru" > I don't mean to revert the already applied changes, but maybe better > to concentrate on fixing other real bugs (and/or real warnings). > Yeah. Sure thing. It's just that I sort of ran into those cases a few days ago. Thanks -- Gustavo
diff --git a/sound/pci/intel8x0.c b/sound/pci/intel8x0.c index 9517f9b..ffddcdf 100644 --- a/sound/pci/intel8x0.c +++ b/sound/pci/intel8x0.c @@ -825,7 +825,7 @@ static int snd_intel8x0_pcm_trigger(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, int cmd switch (cmd) { case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_RESUME: ichdev->suspended = 0; - /* fallthru */ + /* fall through */ case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_START: case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_PAUSE_RELEASE: val = ICH_IOCE | ICH_STARTBM; @@ -833,7 +833,7 @@ static int snd_intel8x0_pcm_trigger(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, int cmd break; case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_SUSPEND: ichdev->suspended = 1; - /* fallthru */ + /* fall through */ case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_STOP: val = 0; break; @@ -867,7 +867,7 @@ static int snd_intel8x0_ali_trigger(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, int cmd switch (cmd) { case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_RESUME: ichdev->suspended = 0; - /* fallthru */ + /* fall through */ case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_START: case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_PAUSE_RELEASE: if (substream->stream == SNDRV_PCM_STREAM_PLAYBACK) { @@ -884,7 +884,7 @@ static int snd_intel8x0_ali_trigger(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, int cmd break; case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_SUSPEND: ichdev->suspended = 1; - /* fallthru */ + /* fall through */ case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_STOP: case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_PAUSE_PUSH: /* pause */
Replace "fallthru" with a proper "fall through" annotation. This fix is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> --- sound/pci/intel8x0.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)