On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:08:02PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > After I'd completed the warning, I kicked off a bootstrap so as to add
> > various gcc_fallthrough calls. There were a good amount of them, as
> > expected. I also grepped various FALLTHRU/Falls through/...fall
> > thru.../... comments in config/ and added gcc_fallthroughs to make it
> > easier for people. Wherever I wasn't sure that the gcc_fallthrough was
> > appropriate, I added an 'XXX' comment. This must not be relied upon as I
> > don't know most of the compiler code. The same goes for relevant libraries
> > where I introduced various gomp_fallthrough macros conditional on __GNUC__
> > (I'd tried to use a configure check but then decided I won't put up with
> > all the vagaries of autoconf).
>
> Do we really want to clutter up the entire tree like that? The result is
> particularly ugly IMO. Just add -Wno-switch-fallthrough somewhere I'd say.
Well, we already have the /* FALLTHRU */ etc. comments in most of the
places. Perhaps if we replace those comments just with GCC_FALLTHRU,
a macro that expands to __builtin_fallthrough (); for GCC >= 7, or
to [[fallthrough]] for C++17, or nothing?
IMHO it doesn't make sense to keep both the gomp_fallthrough (); macro and
/* FALLTHROUGH */ etc. comments in the source.
Jakub
