[PATCH 0/3] Fix Missing break in switch Coverity issues
gedare at rtems.org
Tue Mar 9 06:28:18 UTC 2021
On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 11:04 PM Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> On 09/03/2021 06:47, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> > As with other things we should provide a portable way to maintain it.
> > I would suggest adding to basedefs.h:
> > #define RTEMS_CASE_FALL_THROUGH
> > macro as reasonably simple. We can debate a few variations
> > RTEMS_CASE_FALLTHRU is short and sufficient.
> > Most likely we'll never have to change it, but this will simplify code
> > review and avoid typos /* fall-trough */
> Linux uses a macro:
> My favorite name is RTEMS_FALL_THROUGH.
Fine with me.
> embedded brains GmbH
> Herr Sebastian HUBER
> Dornierstr. 4
> 82178 Puchheim
> email: sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
> phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 16
> fax: +49-89-18 94 741 - 08
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht München
> Registernummer: HRB 157899
> Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Peter Rasmussen, Thomas Dörfler
> Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier:
More information about the devel