From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21364 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2016 08:52:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 21355 invoked by uid 89); 30 Aug 2016 08:52:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:52:11 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A14DC81233; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:52:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-204-23.brq.redhat.com [10.40.204.23]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u7U8q5mI011342 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 30 Aug 2016 04:52:08 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:52:00 -0000 From: Marek Polacek To: Eric Gallager Cc: GCC Patches , Jason Merrill , Joseph Myers Subject: Re: Implement -Wimplicit-fallthrough (version 7) Message-ID: <20160830085205.GH11131@redhat.com> References: <20160829115847.GZ11131@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) X-SW-Source: 2016-08/txt/msg02030.txt.bz2 On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 09:32:04AM -0400, Eric Gallager wrote: > I tried v6 on my binutils-gdb fork, and it printed A LOT of > warnings... BTW, why is that so? Does binutils-gdb not use various FALLTHRU comments? Marek