On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Joe Groff <arc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Alexander Kornienko <ale...@google.com> > wrote: > > This patch adds diagnostic of unintentional control flow fall-through > > between switch labels. It also provides a way to specifically mark a > switch > > label with a c++ 11 attribute [[fallthrough]] to specify an intentional > > fall-through. This also serves as an example of C++ 11 statement > attributes, > > and builds upon my recent patch, which introduces support for this > language > > feature. > > For future-proofing's sake, does the standard provide any guidance for > naming nonstandardized attributes? Should the attribute be named > something like 'clang::fallthrough' instead of just 'fallthrough', in > case a future standard or other implementations provide for a similar > attribute with different behavior?
Yes, I think so. The attribute namespace mechanism was designed to allow such vendor extensions without creating problems for future standardization.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
