On Tuesday 11 October 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > The following patch introduces difference warning levels for > -Wimplicit-fallthrough warning, so projects can choose if they want to > honor only attributes (-Wimplicit-fallthrough=5), or what kind of comments. > =4 is very picky and accepts only very small amount of comments, =3 is what > we had before this patch, =2 looks case insensitively for falls?[ > \t-]*thr(u|ough) anywhere in the comment, =1 accepts any comment, =0 is > the same as -Wno-implicit-fallthrough - disables the warning.
I would suggest also looking for comments with "no break" in them, as that is another common way to annotate the intentional lack of a 'break'. If you want another example besides the linux kernel, I unified all our fall through comments in qtbase in August: https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/163595/ Though Qt is far from -Wimpliciit-fallthough clean after that, another colleague is working on that since we have traditionally aimed for -Wall - Wextra -Werror, though it will seriously wreck hawock with readability in several places with unrolled loops and switches on integers. Best regards `Allan
