On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:47:50PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:39:41PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > On 2016.09.27 at 10:46 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > > > The intent has been that we catch the most common forms, but still
> > > > require
> > > > it not to be complete free form. Because, as experience shows, people
> > > > are
> > > > extremely creative in these comments, and it is not very good idea to
> > > > support everything. For ... fall through ... , what is the purpose of
> > > > those ...s?
> > >
> > > No idea, but it has been there for a while and seems perfectly reasonable.
> > > IMO any sentence containing "fall" and "through/thru/etc" on the same
> > > line
> > > should be accepted, otherwise it's just misplaced pickiness.
> >
> > +1. Folks will just disable the warning if gcc is not very permissive
> > when paring existing comments. You cannot expect anyone to change
> > perfectly fine fall-through comments just to accommodate an arbitrary
> > gcc style.
>
> The accepted style is already very permissive, we don't allow just one
> spelling as various lint tools. I'm afraid looking for various cases of
> fall and through/thru possibly separated by anything and surrounded by
> anything is IMHO already too much, the compiler shouldn't try to try to
> grammar analyze the comments on what they actually talk about and whether it
> might be related to the switch fall through or something completely
> different. Users should start using [[fallthrough]]; anyway.
I'm thinking perhaps we should also accept /* ... fall through ... */
and /* else fall through */, but accepting any sentence containing "fall" and
"through/thru/etc" on the same line would mean that we also accept
/* Don't fall through here. */ and that is clearly not desirable.
Marek
