On 2017.03.27 at 07:44 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 03:39:37PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > > > Well, a missing break is a bug. No? > > Every 'case' statement without exception must be accompanied by > a 'break' statement? Wasting others' time to "fix" working > correct code is acceptable?
Sorry, I should have written "potential bug". For legacy code I would simply disable the warning. But to dismiss it utterly, as you do, is shortsighted, because it has the potential to point out real bugs. -- Markus
