Thank you for the report. Would you mind pasting a few more lines of the compiler error output, please?

from lsquic.

My full output.
`Sure. My full output.

[ 1%] Building C object src/liblsquic/CMakeFiles/lsquic.dir/lsquic_chsk_stream.c.o
In file included from /home/sergei/Documents/git/lsquic-client/src/liblsquic/lsquic_chsk_stream.c:27:0:
/home/sergei/Documents/git/lsquic-client/src/liblsquic/lsquic_chsk_stream.c: In function ‘hsk_client_on_read’:
/home/sergei/Documents/git/lsquic-client/src/liblsquic/lsquic_logger.h:129:12: error: this statement may fall through [-Werror=implicit-fallthrough=]
if (LSQ_LOG_ENABLED(level))
^
/home/sergei/Documents/git/lsquic-client/src/liblsquic/lsquic_logger.h:162:24: note: in expansion of macro ‘LSQ_LOG2’

define LSQ_LOG LSQ_LOG2

                    ^~~~~~~~

/home/sergei/Documents/git/lsquic-client/src/liblsquic/lsquic_logger.h:173:26: note: in expansion of macro ‘LSQ_LOG’
#define LSQ_WARN(...) LSQ_LOG(LSQ_LOG_WARN, __VA_ARGS__) ^~~~~~~ /home/sergei/Documents/git/lsquic-client/src/liblsquic/lsquic_chsk_stream.c:119:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘LSQ_WARN’ LSQ_WARN("lsquic_enc_session_handle_chlo_reply returned unknown value %d", s); ^~~~~~~~ /home/sergei/Documents/git/lsquic-client/src/liblsquic/lsquic_chsk_stream.c:120:5: note: here case DATA_FORMAT_ERROR: ^~~~ cc1: all warnings being treated as errors src/liblsquic/CMakeFiles/lsquic.dir/build.make:134: recipe for target 'src/liblsquic/CMakeFiles/lsquic.dir/lsquic_chsk_stream.c.o' failed make[2]: *** [src/liblsquic/CMakeFiles/lsquic.dir/lsquic_chsk_stream.c.o] Error 1 CMakeFiles/Makefile2:172: recipe for target 'src/liblsquic/CMakeFiles/lsquic.dir/all' failed make[1]: *** [src/liblsquic/CMakeFiles/lsquic.dir/all] Error 2 Makefile:94: recipe for target 'all' failed make: *** [all] Error 2

from lsquic.

I see, it's this code:

    default:
        LSQ_WARN("lsquic_enc_session_handle_chlo_reply returned unknown value %d", s);
    case DATA_FORMAT_ERROR:
        LSQ_INFO("lsquic_enc_session_handle_chlo_reply returned an error");

We want it to fall through. I wonder what the new gcc wants from us here? 🤔

from lsquic.

I suspect this will be a whack-a-mole going forward. Perhaps the thing to do is to remove -Werror.

from lsquic.

Bing finds this:

https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2017/03/10/wimplicit-fallthrough-in-gcc-7/

Boy, talk about hand-holding...

from lsquic.

Thank you for your response, I've disabled a flag -Werror, but you had a comment, that you want prevent warnings. As I understand we should add explicit comments.

from lsquic.

These warnings have been addressed: see pull request #26.

from lsquic.