Hi Joe,
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Joe Perches <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-11-28 at 14:37 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> Quoting Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>:
>> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Alan Cox
>> > <[email protected]> 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);
> }
Makes sense to me.
Comments are fragile.
In addition, they are stripped if you run cpp (or gcc -E) separately, unlike
__atttibute__((fallthrough)).
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
