On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 1:42 PM Moore, Robert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Desaulniers <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 1:33 PM
> To: Moore, Robert <[email protected]>
> Cc: Kaneda, Erik <[email protected]>; Wysocki, Rafael J
> <[email protected]>; Gustavo A . R . Silva <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; Len Brown <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPICA: fix -Wfallthrough
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 1:27 PM Moore, Robert <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ndesaulniers via sendgmr
> > <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Nick
> > Desaulniers
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 6:12 PM
> > To: Moore, Robert <[email protected]>; Kaneda, Erik
> > <[email protected]>; Wysocki, Rafael J
> > <[email protected]>; Gustavo A . R . Silva
> > <[email protected]>
> > Cc: [email protected]; Nick Desaulniers
> > <[email protected]>; Len Brown <[email protected]>;
> > [email protected]; [email protected];
> > [email protected]
> > Subject: [PATCH] ACPICA: fix -Wfallthrough
> >
> > The "fallthrough" pseudo-keyword was added as a portable way to denote
> > intentional fallthrough. This code seemed to be using a mix of fallthrough
> > comments that GCC recognizes, and some kind of lint marker.
> > I'm guessing that linter hasn't been run in a while from the mixed use of
> > the marker vs comments.
> >
> > /*lint -fallthrough */
> >
> > This is the lint marker
>
> Yes; but from my patch, the hunk modifying
> acpi_ex_store_object_to_node() and vsnprintf() seem to indicate that maybe
> the linter hasn't been run in a while.
>
> Which linter is that? I'm curious whether I should leave those be, and
> whether we're going to have an issue between compilers and linters as to
> which line/order these would need to appear on.
>
> It's an old version of PC-Lint, which we don't use anymore.
Ah, ok, I'll remove them then.
+ ACPI_FALLTHROUGH;
/*lint -fallthrough */
should work to support both, but I'll just remove it. V2 inbound.
Thanks for the feedback!
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
