On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 01:02:07PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 08:48:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 11:24:36AM -0700, h...@zytor.com wrote: > > > >> > +/* > > > >> > + * Add the pseudo keyword 'fallthrough' so case statement blocks > > > >> > + * must end with any of these keywords: > > > >> > + * break; > > > >> > + * fallthrough; > > > >> > + * goto <label>; > > > >> > + * return [expression]; > > > >> > + * > > > >> > + * gcc: > > > >> > >https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Statement-Attributes.html#Statement-Attributes > > > >> > + */ > > > >> > +#if __has_attribute(__fallthrough__) > > > >> > +# define fallthrough > > > >> > __attribute__((__fallthrough__)) > > > >> > +#else > > > >> > +# define fallthrough do {} while (0) /* > > > >> > fallthrough */ > > > >> > +#endif > > > >> > + > > > > > If the comments are stripped, how would the compiler see them to be > > > able to issue a warning? I would guess that it is retained or replaced > > > with some other magic token. > > > > Everything that has the warning (GCC-7+/CLANG-9) has that attribute. > > I'd like to make sure we don't regress Coverity most of all. If the > recent updates to the Coverity scanner include support for the attribute > now, then I'm all for it. :)
IMO Coverity can go pound sand, I never see its output, while I get to look at the code and GCC output daily.
