Re: 2 patches: long-options.c vs -Wimplicit-fallthrough and .m4 nits

On 10/12/2016 03:06 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: Sure. Update past this commit: Thanks, that fixed it for me.

Re: 2 patches: long-options.c vs -Wimplicit-fallthrough and .m4 nits

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Paul Eggert wrote: > That email (archived at > ) is > missing the one-line change that was installed into lib/long-options.c. > Maybe a problem in the way that you invoked vc-dwim? PEBKAC :-) > W

Re: 2 patches: long-options.c vs -Wimplicit-fallthrough and .m4 nits

That email (archived at ) is missing the one-line change that was installed into lib/long-options.c. Maybe a problem in the way that you invoked vc-dwim? While we're on the topic of vc-dwim, every time I use vc-dwim I get the

2 patches: long-options.c vs -Wimplicit-fallthrough and .m4 nits

FYI: I've just pushed these: >From 0a4afb9850a6ca342ec111be88ea4d8d795633e8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jim Meyering Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 10:43:09 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] long-options: avoid new GCC 7 warning from -Wimplicit-fallthrough * lib/long-options.c (parse_long_options): Add a br