On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 09:35:31AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 08:16 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:32:43AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 07:19 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:04:37PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > fallthrough may become a pseudo reserved keyword so this only use of > > > > > fallthrough is better renamed to allow it. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> > > > > Are you referring to the __attribute__((fallthrough)) statement that gcc > > > > supports? If so the compiler should by all rights be able to > > > > differentiate > > > > between a null statement attribute and a explicit goto and label > > > > without the > > > > need for renaming here. Or are you referring to something else? > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > I sent after this a patch that adds > > > > > > # define fallthrough __attribute__((__fallthrough__)) > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1108577/ > > > > > > So this rename is a prerequisite to adding this #define. > > > > > why not just define __fallthrough instead, like we do for all the other > > attributes we alias (i.e. __read_mostly, __protected_by, __unused, > > __exception, > > etc) > > Because it's not as intelligible when used as a statement. I think thats somewhat debatable. __fallthrough to me looks like an internal macro, whereas fallthrough looks like a comment someone forgot to /* */
Neil > > > >
