2001-11-22 22:44:13

by Rich Baum

Subject: [PATCH] fix compile warnings in 2.4.15pre9

The following patch fixes some compile warnings in 2..4.15pre9. ?The warnings
are for using labels at the end of compound statements and for tokens at the
end of #undef statements. ?Please consider applying this patch.

Thanks,
Rich

diff -urN -X dontdiff linux/drivers/atm/firestream.c
linux-rb/drivers/atm/firestream.c
--- linux/drivers/atm/firestream.c Thu Nov 22 17:20:52 2001
+++ linux-rb/drivers/atm/firestream.c Thu Nov 22 17:21:22 2001
@@ -758,6 +758,7 @@
kfree (td);
break;
default:
+ break;
/* Here we get the tx purge inhibit command ... */
/* Action, I believe, is "don't do anything". -- REW */
}
diff -urN -X dontdiff linux/drivers/media/video/meye.c
linux-rb/drivers/media/video/meye.c
--- linux/drivers/media/video/meye.c Thu Oct 25 15:53:47 2001
+++ linux-rb/drivers/media/video/meye.c Sun Nov 18 19:17:56 2001
@@ -903,6 +903,7 @@
mchip_free_frame();
}
out:
+ return;
}

/****************************************************************************
/
diff -urN -X dontdiff linux/drivers/media/video/zr36067.c
linux-rb/drivers/media/video/zr36067.c
--- linux/drivers/media/video/zr36067.c Thu Nov 22 17:20:54 2001
+++ linux-rb/drivers/media/video/zr36067.c Thu Nov 22 17:21:24 2001
@@ -1418,6 +1418,7 @@
post_office_write(zr, 3, 0, 0);
udelay(2);
default:
+ break;
}
return 0;
}
diff -urN -X dontdiff linux/drivers/scsi/cpqfcTSworker.c
linux-rb/drivers/scsi/cpqfcTSworker.c
--- linux/drivers/scsi/cpqfcTSworker.c Thu Oct 25 15:53:50 2001
+++ linux-rb/drivers/scsi/cpqfcTSworker.c Sun Nov 18 19:21:00 2001
@@ -2912,6 +2912,7 @@
}

Done:
+ return;
}

static void
@@ -3029,7 +3030,7 @@


Done:
-
+ return;
}


diff -urN -X dontdiff linux/drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_hipd.c
linux-rb/drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_hipd.c
--- linux/drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_hipd.c Thu Nov 22 17:20:57 2001
+++ linux-rb/drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_hipd.c Thu Nov 22 17:21:35 2001
@@ -4691,6 +4691,7 @@
OUTL_DSP (SCRIPTA_BA (np, clrack));
return;
out_stuck:
+ return;
}

/*
@@ -5226,6 +5227,7 @@

return;
fail:
+ return;
}

/*
diff -urN -X dontdiff linux/drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_nvram.c
linux-rb/drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_nvram.c
--- linux/drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_nvram.c Thu Nov 22 17:20:57 2001
+++ linux-rb/drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_nvram.c Thu Nov 22 09:04:51 2001
@@ -505,10 +505,10 @@
return retv;
}

-#undef SET_BIT 0
-#undef CLR_BIT 1
-#undef SET_CLK 2
-#undef CLR_CLK 3
+#undef SET_BIT /* 0 */
+#undef CLR_BIT /* 1 */
+#undef SET_CLK /* 2 */
+#undef CLR_CLK /* 3 */

/*
* Try reading Symbios NVRAM.
diff -urN -X dontdiff linux/fs/ntfs/fs.c linux-rb/fs/ntfs/fs.c
--- linux/fs/ntfs/fs.c Thu Oct 25 02:02:26 2001
+++ linux-rb/fs/ntfs/fs.c Sun Nov 18 19:21:50 2001
@@ -852,7 +852,7 @@
}
break;
default:
- /* Nothing. Just clear the inode and exit. */
+ break; /* Nothing. Just clear the inode and exit. */
}
ntfs_clear_inode(&inode->u.ntfs_i);
unl_out:
diff -urN -X dontdiff linux/net/802/cl2llc.c linux-rb/net/802/cl2llc.c
--- linux/net/802/cl2llc.c Sun Nov 18 15:34:16 2001
+++ linux-rb/net/802/cl2llc.c Sun Nov 18 19:22:38 2001
@@ -97,6 +97,7 @@
llc_interpret_pseudo_code(lp, REJECT1, skb, NO_FRAME);
break;
default:
+ break;
}
if(lp->llc_callbacks)
{
@@ -498,6 +499,7 @@
lp->f_flag = fr->i_hdr.i_pflag;
break;
default:
+ break;
}
pc++;
}

2001-11-22 23:55:50

by Andreas Dilger

Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix compile warnings in 2.4.15pre9

On Nov 22, 2001 17:45 -0500, Rich Baum wrote:
How about something like (not real patches, but you get the idea:

@@ -4691,6 +4691,7 @@
OUTL_DSP (SCRIPTA_BA (np, clrack));
+out_stuck:
return;
-out_stuck:
}

@@ -5226,6 +5227,7 @@

+fail:
return;
-fail:
}

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/

2001-11-23 00:12:04

by Robert Love

Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix compile warnings in 2.4.15pre9

On Thu, 2001-11-22 at 18:54, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> How about something like (not real patches, but you get the idea:
>
> @@ -4691,6 +4691,7 @@
> OUTL_DSP (SCRIPTA_BA (np, clrack));
> +out_stuck:
> return;
> -out_stuck:
> }
>
> @@ -5226,6 +5227,7 @@
>
> +fail:
> return;
> -fail:
> }

Yes, much better. Besides looking better, gcc _may_ generate different
code (I don't know how smart it is in this case) that has these "fall
throughs" and that would mean (a) less code and (b) less jumps -- always
a win.

Robert Love