lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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
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
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-11-22 23:59    [W:0.194 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site