Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 23 Nov 2020 09:54:48 +1100 (AEDT) | From | Finn Thain <> | Subject | Re: [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 tooling.
> 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: this(); + fallthrough; case 2: that();
But what we inevitably get is changes like this:
case 3: this(); + break; case 4: hmmm();
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 >
|  |