GCC added an implicit-fallthrough warning a while back, where it
would complain if you had a nontrivial "case:" block that didn't end
with break, return, or something like that. Clang recently added
the same thing.
GCC, however, would let you annotate a fall-through as intended by
any of various magic "/* fall through */" comments. Clang, however,
only seems to like "__attribute__((fallthrough))". Fortunately, GCC
accepts that too.
A previous commit in this branch defined a FALLTHROUGH macro to do
the right thing if GNUC is defined; here we replace all of our "fall
through" comments with uses of that macro.
This is an automated commit, made with the following perl one-liner:
#!/usr/bin/perl -i -p
s#/\* *falls? ?thr.*?\*/#FALLTHROUGH;#i;
(In order to avoid conflicts, I'm applying this script separately to
each maint branch. This is the 0.4.3 version.)
GCC added an implicit-fallthrough warning a while back, where it
would complain if you had a nontrivial "case:" block that didn't end
with break, return, or something like that. Clang recently added
the same thing.
GCC, however, would let you annotate a fall-through as intended by
any of various magic "/* fall through */" comments. Clang, however,
only seems to like "__attribute__((fallthrough))". Fortunately, GCC
accepts that too.
A previous commit in this branch defined a FALLTHROUGH macro to do
the right thing if GNUC is defined; here we replace all of our "fall
through" comments with uses of that macro.
This is an automated commit, made with the following perl one-liner:
#!/usr/bin/perl -i -p
s#/\* *falls? ?thr.*?\*/#FALLTHROUGH;#i;
(In order to avoid conflicts, I'm applying this script separately to
each maint branch. This is the 0.4.2 version.)
GCC added an implicit-fallthrough warning a while back, where it
would complain if you had a nontrivial "case:" block that didn't end
with break, return, or something like that. Clang recently added
the same thing.
GCC, however, would let you annotate a fall-through as intended by
any of various magic "/* fall through */" comments. Clang, however,
only seems to like "__attribute__((fallthrough))". Fortunately, GCC
accepts that too.
A previous commit in this branch defined a FALLTHROUGH macro to do
the right thing if GNUC is defined; here we replace all of our "fall
through" comments with uses of that macro.
This is an automated commit, made with the following perl one-liner:
#!/usr/bin/perl -i -p
s#/\* *falls? ?thr.*?\*/#FALLTHROUGH;#i;
(In order to avoid conflicts, I'm applying this script separately to
each maint branch. This is the 0.4.1 version.)
GCC added an implicit-fallthrough warning a while back, where it
would complain if you had a nontrivial "case:" block that didn't end
with break, return, or something like that. Clang recently added
the same thing.
GCC, however, would let you annotate a fall-through as intended by
any of various magic "/* fall through */" comments. Clang, however,
only seems to like "__attribute__((fallthrough))". Fortunately, GCC
accepts that too.
A previous commit in this branch defined a FALLTHROUGH macro to do
the right thing if GNUC is defined; here we replace all of our "fall
through" comments with uses of that macro.
This is an automated commit, made with the following perl one-liner:
#!/usr/bin/perl -i -p
s#/\* *falls? ?thr.*?\*/#FALLTHROUGH;#i;
This macro defers to __attribute__((fallthrough)) on GCC (and
clang). Previously we had been using GCC's magic /* fallthrough */
comments, but clang very sensibly doesn't accept those.
Since not all compiler recognize it, we only define it when our
configure script detects that it works.
Part of a fix for 34078.
Do not try to stuff "HS_DESC_DECODE_GENERIC_ERROR" (-1) into a
socks5_reply_status_t (enum). It doesn't actually make sense, and
isn't one of our documented extensions.
(This can only happen on a nonfatal assertion that we haven't seen,
so it probably isn't happening in practice.)
Fixes another case of bug 34077; bugfix on 0.4.3.1-alpha.
Split "can extend over IPv6" and "has advertised IPv6 ORPort" into
separate functions. They currently have the same result, but this may
change in 33818 with ExtendAllowIPv6Addresses.
Part of 33817.
