From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 44708 invoked by alias); 4 May 2018 17:51:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 44698 invoked by uid 89); 4 May 2018 17:51:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=occasional X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 May 2018 17:51:51 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEAC84015A5E; Fri, 4 May 2018 17:51:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C2EB7C3E; Fri, 4 May 2018 17:51:49 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [RFA 0/9] Enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20180421183056.29292-1-tom@tromey.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <257be5cb-74f7-6f4e-48a7-bea36fbab9c3@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 17:51:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180421183056.29292-1-tom@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-05/txt/msg00110.txt.bz2 On 04/21/2018 07:30 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > This series enables -Wimplicit-fallthrough for gdb. I think this is > valuable because it can prevent the occasional bug. Agreed. > > A couple of the patches are straightforward. For example, patch #1 > changes existing "fall-through" comments to the correct form that will > be recognized by GCC. > > In some cases I was not sure which change to make. I've split all > these out in this series for easier review. Please examine them > carefully. This applies to patches 4, 5, 6, and 8. > > I chose to use comments rather than the new fall-through attribute > because the comments are more portable: they can be ignored by > compilers that do not understand them, and they do not require > additional configury. Yeah. Maybe we'll be able to use [[fallthough]] at some point. I sent a comment to patch 9/9. Please update the commit log of patch 5/9 reflecting John's finding, if it makes sense. Otherwise looks good to me. Please push. You'll need to regenerate the configure scripts. Thanks, Pedro Alves