On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:28:23AM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:53 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva > <gust...@embeddedor.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > Indeed -- the decision last year was to wait for a while since not > everyone had support for it. My branch is waiting here: > > https://github.com/ojeda/linux/tree/compiler-attributes-fallthrough > > The good news is that there is some progress. For instance, LLVM is > working on supporting the GNU spelling: > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D63260 > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37135 > https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/235
Can it build a kernel without patches yet? That is, why should I care what LLVM does? > Also note that C2x may get [[fallthrough]]. See N2267 and N2335. At > that point, surely tools/IDEs/analyzers will support it :-) The > question is whether we want to wait that long to replace the comments. #define __fallthrough [[fallthrough]] right?
