On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 16:58 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 09:35:31AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 08:16 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:32:43AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 07:19 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:04:37PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > > fallthrough may become a pseudo reserved keyword so this only use of
> > > > > > fallthrough is better renamed to allow it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <j...@perches.com>
> > > > > Are you referring to the __attribute__((fallthrough)) statement that
> > > > > gcc
> > > > > supports? If so the compiler should by all rights be able to
> > > > > differentiate
> > > > > between a null statement attribute and a explicit goto and label
> > > > > without the
> > > > > need for renaming here. Or are you referring to something else?
> > > >
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> > > > I sent after this a patch that adds
> > > >
> > > > # define fallthrough __attribute__((__fallthrough__))
> > > >
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1108577/
> > > >
> > > > So this rename is a prerequisite to adding this #define.
> > > >
> > > why not just define __fallthrough instead, like we do for all the other
> > > attributes we alias (i.e. __read_mostly, __protected_by, __unused,
> > > __exception,
> > > etc)
> >
> > Because it's not as intelligible when used as a statement.
> I think thats somewhat debatable. __fallthrough to me looks like an internal
> macro, whereas fallthrough looks like a comment someone forgot to /* */
I'd rather see:
switch (foo) {
case FOO:
bar |= baz;
fallthrough;
case BAR:
bar |= qux;
break;
default:
error();
}
than
switch (foo) {
case FOO:
bar |= baz;
__fallthrough;
case BAR:
bar |= qux;
break;
default:
error();
}
or esoecially
switch (foo) {
case FOO:
bar |= baz;
/* fallthrough
*/;
case BAR:
bar |= qux;
break;
default:
error();
}
but <shrug>, bikeshed ahoy!...
