diff options
author | Jacob Garber <jgarber1@ualberta.ca> | 2019-07-12 10:34:06 -0600 |
---|---|---|
committer | Patrick Georgi <pgeorgi@google.com> | 2019-07-19 09:57:54 +0000 |
commit | 4c33a3aaa38c94b103c51aa6a5553a4b1355c435 (patch) | |
tree | 57b215944720d992ea1ded6bdd774d79411a687f /src/vendorcode/amd/agesa/f14/Proc/Mem/Main/muc.c | |
parent | 78107939de6e2c4b66de6bd1370607f7d3a600f0 (diff) | |
download | coreboot-4c33a3aaa38c94b103c51aa6a5553a4b1355c435.tar.xz |
src: Make implicit fall throughs explicit
Implicit fall throughs are a perpetual source of bugs and Coverity Scan
issues, so let's squash them once and for all. GCC can flag implicit fall
throughs using the -Wimplicit-fallthrough warning, and this should
ensure no more enter the code base. However, many fall throughs are
intentional, and we can use the following comment style to have GCC
suppress the warning.
switch (x) {
case 1:
y += 1;
/* fall through */
case 2:
y += 2;
/* fall through - but this time with an explanation */
default:
y += 3;
}
This patch adds comments for all remaining intentional fall throughs,
and tweaks some existing fall through comments to fit the syntax that
GCC expects.
Change-Id: I1d75637a434a955a58d166ad203e49620d7395ed
Signed-off-by: Jacob Garber <jgarber1@ualberta.ca>
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/34297
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
Reviewed-by: HAOUAS Elyes <ehaouas@noos.fr>
Diffstat (limited to 'src/vendorcode/amd/agesa/f14/Proc/Mem/Main/muc.c')
-rw-r--r-- | src/vendorcode/amd/agesa/f14/Proc/Mem/Main/muc.c | 6 |
1 files changed, 2 insertions, 4 deletions
diff --git a/src/vendorcode/amd/agesa/f14/Proc/Mem/Main/muc.c b/src/vendorcode/amd/agesa/f14/Proc/Mem/Main/muc.c index 88b85df7ac..da0eb95cf3 100644 --- a/src/vendorcode/amd/agesa/f14/Proc/Mem/Main/muc.c +++ b/src/vendorcode/amd/agesa/f14/Proc/Mem/Main/muc.c @@ -213,8 +213,7 @@ MemUFillTrainPattern ( break; case TestPatternJD256B: k >>= 1; - // break is not being used here because TestPatternJD256B also need - // to run TestPatternJD256A sequence. + // fall through - TestPatternJD256B also need to run TestPatternJD256A sequence case TestPatternJD256A: k >>= 3; ASSERT (k < sizeof (PatternJD_256)); @@ -222,8 +221,7 @@ MemUFillTrainPattern ( break; case TestPatternJD1B: k >>= 1; - // break is not being used here because TestPatternJD1B also need - // to run TestPatternJD1A sequence. + // fall through - TestPatternJD1B also need to run TestPatternJD1A sequence case TestPatternJD1A: k >>= 3; i = (UINT8) (k >> 3); |