[PATCH 0/3] Fix Missing break in switch Coverity issues

Chris Johns chrisj at rtems.org
Tue Mar 9 02:21:27 UTC 2021

On 6/3/21 6:04 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:48 AM Sebastian Huber
> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>> On 05/03/2021 19:40, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 12:25 PM Sebastian Huber
>>> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
>>> <mailto:sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de>> wrote:
>>>     On 05/03/2021 16:27, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>>     > Should we add a macro for this, e.g., "RTEMS_CASE_NO_BREAK" so
>>>     that we
>>>     > can update them in future if needed for other tools?
>>>     I would just pick a name which is understood by GCC, clang, and
>>>     Coverity. I guess other tools will understand this or why did you
>>>     buy them?
>>> Well we didn't pay for any of those but are you wanting a macro or
>>> just the comment?
>> I would just use a comment which is understood by GCC, clang, and
>> Coverity. What does Linux use?
> That's fine, if there is a de facto standard to use, we can go for it.

Looking at the option documentation gcc supports a lot of different possible
ways and the warning option can change what is selected.

Do we allow all that gcc allows? I hope not.


More information about the devel mailing list