On Mon, 2019-06-17 at 17:56 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > +/* > > + * gcc: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html#index-Wimplicit-fallthrough > > + * gcc: > > https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2017/03/10/wimplicit-fallthrough-in-gcc-7/ > > + */ > > +#if __has_attribute(__fallthrough__) > > +# define __fallthrough __attribute__((__fallthrough__)) > > +#else > > +# define __fallthrough > > +#endif > > Is it good idea to add the __'s ? They look kind of ugly.
Dunno. I agree it's kind of ugly, but it should always work. I think the generic problem is introducing a new unprefixed reserved identifier. Underscored identifiers are reserved. There is already a fallthrough: label used in kernel sources in net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c that should probably be changed.
