Re: [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Quoting Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Alan Cox <gnomes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The notation in question has been standard in tools like lint since the
end of the 1970s

Yes.

That said, maybe one option would be to annotate the "case:" and
"default:" statements if that makes people happier.

IOW, we could do something like

    #define fallthrough __atttibute__((fallthrough))

and then write

    fallthrough case 1:
        ...

which while absolutely not traditional, might look and read a bit more
logical to people. I mean, it literally _is_ a "fallthrough case", so
it makes semantic sense.


This is elegant. The thing is that this makes it appear as if there is an unconditional fall through.

It is not uncommon to have multiple break statements in the same case block and to fall through also.

Thanks
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva











[Index of Archives]

  Powered by Linux

[Older Kernel Discussion]     [Yosemite National Park Forum]     [Gimp]     [Stuff]     [Index of Other Archives]