On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 12:24:03PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 12:18:11PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 27 Jul 2016, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > And this is the rest. Either I just adjusted a falls through comment,
> > > > > or I added __builtin_
On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 12:18:11PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > On Wed, 27 Jul 2016, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > >
> > > > And this is the rest. Either I just adjusted a falls through comment,
> > > > or I added __builtin_fallthrough (). These were the cases where I was
> > > > fairly sure tha
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:47:27AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/04/2016 06:36 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Jul 2016, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >
> > > And this is the rest. Either I just adjusted a falls through comment,
> > > or I added __builtin_fallthrough (). These were
On 08/04/2016 06:36 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016, Marek Polacek wrote:
And this is the rest. Either I just adjusted a falls through comment,
or I added __builtin_fallthrough (). These were the cases where I was
fairly sure that the fall through is intentional.
I saw one
Hi,
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016, Marek Polacek wrote:
> And this is the rest. Either I just adjusted a falls through comment,
> or I added __builtin_fallthrough (). These were the cases where I was
> fairly sure that the fall through is intentional.
I saw one case where I think the warning is a bit
And this is the rest. Either I just adjusted a falls through comment, or
I added __builtin_fallthrough (). These were the cases where I was fairly
sure that the fall through is intentional.
This patch has been tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu, aarch64-linux-gnu,
and x86_64-redhat-linux.
