Adjust wording of two fall-through comments
Commit Message
In two places in glibc, -Wextra produces implicit-fallthrough warnings
where there are comments about the fall-through but their wording
doesn't match one of the forms expected by the default
implicit-fallthrough level. This patch adjusts those two places to
have a comment in a form that is accepted, so avoiding the warning
(this seems preferable to only being able to use a looser level of the
warning that allows any comment at all as evidence of deliberate
fall-through).
Tested for x86_64.
2019-02-13 Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
* iconvdata/cns11643.h (ucs4_to_cns11643): Adjust fall-through
comment wording.
* nis/nis_call.c (__do_niscall3): Likewise.
Comments
* Joseph Myers:
> * iconvdata/cns11643.h (ucs4_to_cns11643): Adjust fall-through
> comment wording.
> * nis/nis_call.c (__do_niscall3): Likewise.
Looks okay to me.
Thanks,
Florian
Joseph Myers wrote:
> In two places in glibc, -Wextra produces implicit-fallthrough warnings
> where there are comments about the fall-through but their wording
> doesn't match one of the forms expected by the default
> implicit-fallthrough level. This patch adjusts those two places to
> have a comment in a form that is accepted, so avoiding the warning
> (this seems preferable to only being able to use a looser level of the
> warning that allows any comment at all as evidence of deliberate
> fall-through).
>
> Tested for x86_64.
>
> 2019-02-13 Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
>
> * iconvdata/cns11643.h (ucs4_to_cns11643): Adjust fall-through
> comment wording.
> * nis/nis_call.c (__do_niscall3): Likewise.
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Thanks.
@@ -220,7 +220,8 @@ ucs4_to_cns11643 (uint32_t wch, unsigned char *s, size_t avail)
cp = __cns11643l1_from_ucs4_tab12[ch - 0x4e00];
if (cp[0] != '\0')
break;
- /* FALLTHROUGH. Let's try the other planes. */
+ /* Let's try the other planes. */
+ /* Fall through. */
case 0x3400 ... 0x4dff:
case 0x9f9d ... 0x9fa5:
/* Let's try the other planes. */
@@ -325,6 +325,7 @@ __do_niscall3 (dir_binding *dbp, u_long prog, xdrproc_t xargs, caddr_t req,
}
/* Yes, the missing break is correct. If we doesn't have to
start a callback, look if we have to search another server */
+ /* Fall through. */
case NIS_LOOKUP:
case NIS_ADD:
case NIS_MODIFY: