lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> 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.

Or maybe people hate that kind of "making up new syntax" too?

Linus

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-28 20:10    [W:0.490 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site