On Tue, 2019-06-18 at 09:34 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > 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.
except include/uapi where some static inline switch might > We can use unprefixed identifier and fix up any problems... I don't > expect too many. but there aren't any existing uses there.
