[alsa-devel] [PATCH] ALSA: intel8x0: Fix fall-through annotations
Replace "fallthru" with a proper "fall through" annotation.
This fix is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva gustavo@embeddedor.com --- sound/pci/intel8x0.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/pci/intel8x0.c b/sound/pci/intel8x0.c index 9517f9b..ffddcdf 100644 --- a/sound/pci/intel8x0.c +++ b/sound/pci/intel8x0.c @@ -825,7 +825,7 @@ static int snd_intel8x0_pcm_trigger(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, int cmd switch (cmd) { case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_RESUME: ichdev->suspended = 0; - /* fallthru */ + /* fall through */ case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_START: case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_PAUSE_RELEASE: val = ICH_IOCE | ICH_STARTBM; @@ -833,7 +833,7 @@ static int snd_intel8x0_pcm_trigger(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, int cmd break; case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_SUSPEND: ichdev->suspended = 1; - /* fallthru */ + /* fall through */ case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_STOP: val = 0; break; @@ -867,7 +867,7 @@ static int snd_intel8x0_ali_trigger(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, int cmd switch (cmd) { case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_RESUME: ichdev->suspended = 0; - /* fallthru */ + /* fall through */ case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_START: case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_PAUSE_RELEASE: if (substream->stream == SNDRV_PCM_STREAM_PLAYBACK) { @@ -884,7 +884,7 @@ static int snd_intel8x0_ali_trigger(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, int cmd break; case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_SUSPEND: ichdev->suspended = 1; - /* fallthru */ + /* fall through */ case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_STOP: case SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_PAUSE_PUSH: /* pause */
On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:38:36 +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
Replace "fallthru" with a proper "fall through" annotation.
This fix is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva gustavo@embeddedor.com
Thanks, applied.
Takashi
On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:08:07 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:38:36 +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
Replace "fallthru" with a proper "fall through" annotation.
This fix is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva gustavo@embeddedor.com
Thanks, applied.
BTW, does "fallthru" really cause a warning? I thought it's also accepted as well as "fall-through". At least, my gcc-8 doesn't give a warning with "fallthru".
Takashi
On 10/3/18 6:19 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:08:07 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:38:36 +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
Replace "fallthru" with a proper "fall through" annotation.
This fix is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva gustavo@embeddedor.com
Thanks, applied.
BTW, does "fallthru" really cause a warning? I thought it's also accepted as well as "fall-through". At least, my gcc-8 doesn't give a warning with "fallthru".
You are correct. It does not trigger a warning.
There are about 50 similar instances in the whole codebase. And, as they are just a few, what I'm trying to do is to replace them with the most commonly used form: "fall through"
Thanks -- Gustavo
On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 20:08:31 +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
On 10/3/18 6:19 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:08:07 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:38:36 +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
Replace "fallthru" with a proper "fall through" annotation.
This fix is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva gustavo@embeddedor.com
Thanks, applied.
BTW, does "fallthru" really cause a warning? I thought it's also accepted as well as "fall-through". At least, my gcc-8 doesn't give a warning with "fallthru".
You are correct. It does not trigger a warning.
There are about 50 similar instances in the whole codebase. And, as they are just a few, what I'm trying to do is to replace them with the most commonly used form: "fall through"
Hm, then I'm not sure whether it's worth for further similar replacements. A term "fallthru" is also very commonly used, and the compiler knows it, too, so why bother to rewrite?
I don't mean to revert the already applied changes, but maybe better to concentrate on fixing other real bugs (and/or real warnings).
thanks,
Takashi
On 10/3/18 8:34 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
You are correct. It does not trigger a warning.
There are about 50 similar instances in the whole codebase. And, as they are just a few, what I'm trying to do is to replace them with the most commonly used form: "fall through"
Hm, then I'm not sure whether it's worth for further similar replacements. A term "fallthru" is also very commonly used, and the compiler knows it, too, so why bother to rewrite?
Not that common actually. There are more than 2000 instances of "fall through" and just ~50 of "fallthru" and ~40 of "fall thru"
I don't mean to revert the already applied changes, but maybe better to concentrate on fixing other real bugs (and/or real warnings).
Yeah. Sure thing. It's just that I sort of ran into those cases a few days ago.
Thanks -- Gustavo
participants (2)
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva -
Takashi Iwai