On 2017.03.26 at 19:30 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 06:45:07PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote: > > On 03/26/2017 11:45 AM, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 11:27:59AM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote: > > >> > > >> +#pragma GCC diagnostic push > > >> +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wimplicit-fallthrough" > > > > > > IMNSHO, the correct fix is to complain loudly to whomever > > > added -Wimplicit-fallthrough to compiler options. It should > > > be removed (especially if is has been added to -Wall). > > > > > > You can also probably add -Wno-implicit-fallthrough to > > > libgfortran/configure.ac at > > > > > > # Add -Wall -fno-repack-arrays -fno-underscoring if we are using GCC. > > > if test "x$GCC" = "xyes"; then > > > AM_FCFLAGS="-I . -Wall -Werror -fimplicit-none -fno-repack-arrays > > > -fno-underscoring" > > > > > > > Problem I have is I don't know who to complain to. I think there is a bit > > of a > > glass wall going on here anyway, so what would be the point of complaining > > if > > the retrievers of the message all have the ON-OFF switch in the OFF > > position. > > (After all, I do not have a PHD, I am not a computer science graduate, why > > bother looking down ones nose at a low life such as myself, OMG its an > > engineer, > > what the hell does he know.) > > > > Maybe these warnings are being turned on as a matter of policy, but truth > > is, > > when I build 50 times a day, the warnings flying by are masking the errors > > or > > other warnings that may be important. For example, I inadvertently passed a > > ptr > > to a function rather than the *ptr. > > > > The warning that ensued flew by mixed in with all the other crap warnings > > and I > > did not see it. That cost me wasted cycle time (remember, I am not an > > expert and > > should not be expected to see such things. Hell, for that matter I should > > not > > even be doing any of this work. :) > > > > This option is clearly enforceing someone's preferred markup of > adding a comment to explicitly note a fall through. Candidate > individual to complain to > > If he added a new option affecting libgfortran, then he should > fix up libgfortran.
He didn't add the warning to specifically annoy fortran developers. It is trivial to add seven gcc_fallthrough() or breaks for someone who knows the code and the person who added the warning obviously doesn't. -- Markus
