On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:36:27PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 27 March 2017 at 14:26, Steve Kargl wrote: > > I completely disagree with your viewpoint here. If someone turns > > on a silly warning, that someone should fix all places within the > > tree that triggers that warning. There is ZERO value to this warning, > > but added work for others to clean up that someone's mess. > > Your absolutist view is just an opinion and reasonable people disagree > on the value of the warning. It's already found bugs in real code. > > You could continue being upset, or somebody who understands the code > could just fix the warnings and everybody can get on with their lives.
Go scan the gcc-patches mailing list for "fallthrough". I'll note other have concerns. Here's one example: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg00300.html Without Bernd's patch to set the default to 1 you will drown in false positives once you start using gcc-7 to build a whole distro. On my Gentoo test box anything but level 1 is simply unacceptable, because you will miss important other warnings in the -Wimplicit-fallthrough noise otherwise. The code is valid C. So, you'll fixing already valid code. -- Steve 20161221 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbCHE-hONow
