On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > >> On 20 January 2013 15:54, Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> wrote: > [...] >> I don't think there's much point adding tons of "XXX" comments >> when a bunch of these aren't actually wrong code. > > Moreover, such comments make them look intentional to static analyzers. > I doubt lying to our tools is a good idea.
I see. That was not my intention. > >> If you want to fix >> this I think a better approach would be more focused patches aimed >> at adding 'break;' or "/* fallthrough */" based on actual human >> examination of the surrounding code. > > Indeed. I'd gladly provide a list of fall throughs Coverity dislikes. > > Additionally, I'd suggest to enforce a suitable convention for new code. > I find this one sensible: either "break;" or "/* fall through */" is > required, except right after a case label, a goto, continue, or return > statement, or function call that never returns. When Clang implements for example an attribute that can be used in C, we could add a Clang specific macro. Then all fall through comments could be replaced with this macro.
