On Wednesday 02 November 2016, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> - case 11: c+=((hashval_t)k[10]<<24);
> - case 10: c+=((hashval_t)k[9]<<16);
> - case 9 : c+=((hashval_t)k[8]<<8);
> + case 11: c+=((hashval_t)k[10]<<24); /* fall through */
> + case 10: c+=((hashval_t)k[9]<<16); /* fall through */
> + case 9 : c+=((hashval_t)k[8]<<8); /* fall through */
> /* the first byte of c is reserved for the length */
This really highlights another exception -Wimplicit-fallthough should tolerate
at least on level 1. Single line of code.
case X: my_statement();
case y: my_statement();
and
case X:
my_statement();
case y:
my_statement();
In both cases, the lack of break is obvious at a glance and thus a comment
highlighting it has never been needed and shouldn't be enforced.
Well, at least in my opinion, and it would take away all the rest of false
positives I run into.
Best regards
`Allan
