[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-11-22 23:59    [W:0.175 / U:0.532 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site