On Mon 2019-06-17 09:25:56, Joe Perches wrote: > 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.
We are not userland, and we control whole codebase. These rules don't apply. We can use unprefixed identifier and fix up any problems... I don't expect too many. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature