Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel: Mark expected switch fall-throughs | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:57:49 -0700 |
| |
On Mon, 2019-06-24 at 15:53 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > On 6/24/19 3:37 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:45:54PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Mon, 2019-06-24 at 21:31 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > I still consider it an abomination that the C parser looks at comments > > > > -- other than to delete them, but OK I suppose, I'll take it. > > > I still believe Arnaldo's/Miguel's/Shawn's/my et al. suggestion of > > > #define __fallthrough __attribute__((fallthrough)) > > > is far better. > > Oh yes, worlds better. Please, can we haz that instead? > Once the C++17 `__attribute__((fallthrough))` is more widely handled by C compilers, > static analyzers, and IDEs, we can switch to using that instead. > Also, we are a few > warnings away (less than five) from being able to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough. After > this option has been finally enabled (in v5.3) we can easily go and replace the comments > to whatever we agree upon.
I doubt waiting is better. If the latest compilers catch it, it's probably good enough.
fallthrough or __fallthrough. I don't care which.
I also doubt most static analyzers will parse all #include headers to find the #define.
| |