From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932632AbaGUO2z (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:28:55 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0215.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.215]:45762 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932270AbaGUO2y (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:28:54 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:988:989:1260:1261:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1538:1593:1594:1711:1714:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3350:3622:3865:3872:3873:3874:4321:5007:7652:8531:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12296:12517:12519:12663:12679:12740:13069:13161:13229:13311:13357:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: rose38_876f4bdc65559 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1370 Message-ID: <1405952929.27900.7.camel@joe-AO725> Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Allow case labels with ranges From: Joe Perches To: Lee Jones Cc: Andrew Morton , Andy Whitcroft , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 07:28:49 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20140721132116.GZ30888@lee--X1> References: <20140721113948.GX30888@lee--X1> <1405948406.21586.10.camel@joe-AO725> <20140721132116.GZ30888@lee--X1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2014-07-21 at 14:21 +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Joe Perches wrote: > > The MISSING_BREAK / fallthrough test does not support > > gcc's extension for case labels with ranges. [] > Yep, that's much worse [1] - I wish I never mentioned it. ;) I'm glad you did actually. The code itself: bool foo(int bar) { case (bar) { case 1: case 2: case 4: return true; default: return false; } should not emit any error. I'll fix it soon.