On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 10:26:29PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 10:10 PM <h...@zytor.com> wrote: > > > > I'm not disagreeing... I think using a macro makes sense. > > It is either a macro or waiting for 5+ years (while we keep using the > comment style) :-) > > In case it helps to make one's mind about whether to go for it or not, > I summarized the advantages and a few other details in the patch I > sent in October: > > > https://github.com/ojeda/linux/commit/668f011a2706ea555987e263f609a5deba9c7fc4 > > It would be nice, however, to discuss whether we want __fallthrough or > fallthrough. The former is consistent with the rest of compiler > attributes and makes it clear it is not a keyword, the latter is > consistent with "break", "goto" and "return", as Joe's patch explains. > I was having this conversation with Joe, and I agree, I like the idea of macroing up the fall through attribute, but naming it __fallthrough seems more consistent to me with the other attribute macros. I also feel like its more recognizable as a macro. Naming it fallthrough just makes it look like someone forgot to put /**/'s around it to me.
Neil > Cheers, > Miguel >
