Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:07:36 -0800 |
| |
On Tue, 2017-11-28 at 14:37 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > Quoting Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>: > > > 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. > > > > 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.
My preferred syntax would be to use __fallthrough or fallthrough in the same manner as break;
switch (foo) { case bar: bar(); fallthrough; case baz: baz(); break; default; qux(); exit(1); }
| |