Messages in this thread | | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Date | Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:10:00 -0800 | Subject | Re: [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
| |