Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] arm devices: mark or remove implicit fallthroughs

[Blue Swirl]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Peter Maydell
<address@hidden> wrote:
> These patches either mark implicit fallthroughs in case statements
> or (in a few cases) remove them by putting in an explicit 'break'
> or 'return' rather than relying on the one in the following case.
> There is no behaviour change for any of these patches, and in all
> cases I've examined the code and am happy that the behaviour is
> intentional and correct.

Would this be material for 1.4?

>
> This isn't intended to be a comprehensive patchset (or even a
> comprehensive patchset for the ARM related files); it's just a
> set of half a dozen changes for files which I care about and where
> the existing behaviour was definitely correct.
>
> I'm not a fan of the code pattern used in the omap and pxa2xx
> code of incrementing an index and then falling through to an
> array access, but it doesn't seem sufficiently ugly to be worth
> rewriting.
>
> Peter Maydell (6):
>   hw/arm_sysctl.c: Add missing 'break' statements
>   hw/omap1.c: Add fallthrough markers and breaks
>   hw/omap_dma, hw/omap_spi: Explicitly mark fallthroughs
>   hw/pflash_cfi02.c: Mark deliberate fallthrough
>   hw/smc91c111: Add explicit 'return' rather than relying on
>     fallthrough
>   hw/pxa2xx_timer: Explicitly mark fallthroughs
>
>  hw/arm_sysctl.c   |    2 ++
>  hw/omap1.c        |    3 +++
>  hw/omap_dma.c     |   12 ++++++++++++
>  hw/omap_spi.c     |   24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  hw/pflash_cfi02.c |    1 +
>  hw/pxa2xx_timer.c |   47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  hw/smc91c111.c    |    1 +
>  7 files changed, 90 insertions(+)
>
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>