On 24.07.2024 13:32, Federico Serafini wrote:
> On 24/07/24 11:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 15.07.2024 18:48, Federico Serafini wrote:
>>> --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
>>> +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
>>> @@ -499,7 +499,7 @@ safe."
>>> -doc_end
>>>
>>> -doc_begin="Switch clauses ending with an explicit comment indicating the
>>> fallthrough intention are safe."
>>> --config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe,
>>> "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(^(?s).*/\\* [fF]all ?through.?
>>> \\*/.*$,0..1))))"}
>>> +-config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe,
>>> "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(^(?s).*/\\* [fF]all ?through\\.?
>>> \\*/.*$,0..2))))"}
>>> -doc_end
>>>
>>> -doc_begin="Switch statements having a controlling expression of enum
>>> type deliberately do not have a default case: gcc -Wall enables -Wswitch
>>> which warns (and breaks the build as we use -Werror) if one of the enum
>>> labels is missing from the switch."
>>
>> This patch doesn't apply. There's a somewhat similar entry, but its doc_begin
>> line is sufficiently different. I have no idea what's going on here; there's
>> no dependency stated anywhere.
>
> Right, this patch depends on [1] which has not been committed yet.
>
> [1]
> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2024-06/msg01347.html
Which in turn isn't ready to be committed yet afaict, due to a pending
question regarding ASSERT_UNREACHABLE().
In any event - please make sure you prominently state dependencies on
uncommitted patches (outside of the same series of course).
Jan
