On 7/25/19 2:27 AM, John Snow wrote:
> On 7/22/19 7:43 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> On 7/19/19 3:14 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> GCC9 is confused by this comment when building with CFLAG
>>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2:
>>>
>>> hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c: In function ‘pflash_write’:
>>> hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c:574:16: error: this statement may fall through
>>> [-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=]
>>> 574 | if (boff == 0x55 && cmd == 0x98) {
>>> | ^
>>> hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c:581:9: note: here
>>> 581 | default:
>>> | ^~~~~~~
>>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>>>
>>> Rewrite the comment using 'fall through' which is recognized by
>>> GCC and static analyzers.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Stefan Weil <s...@weilnetz.de>
>>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c b/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c
>>> index f68837a449..42886f6af5 100644
>>> --- a/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c
>>> +++ b/hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c
>>> @@ -577,7 +577,7 @@ static void pflash_write(void *opaque, hwaddr offset,
>>> uint64_t value,
>>> pfl->cmd = 0x98;
>>> return;
>>> }
>>> - /* No break here */
>>> + /* fall through */
>>> default:
>>> DPRINTF("%s: invalid write for command %02x\n",
>>> __func__, pfl->cmd);
>>>
>>
>> Queued to pflash/next, thanks.
>>
>
> Are you queueing everything or just this one patch? It would be a little
> inconvenient to split a series up like that.
Oops I simply queued this particular one.
> (Most other maintainers will, I believe, expect that with an "ACK" or
> similar that someone else will stage the series.)
I thought these are not critical bugfixes for 4.1, but since I had to do
a pull request for pflash, I could include it. (I already noticed
maintainers queueing particular patches from cleanup series).
Next time I'll ping/wait.
Regards,
Phil.
