Julien Blanc <[email protected]> writes:
> Le mardi 14 juin 2022 à 09:44 +0000, Bezdeka, Florian a écrit :
>>
>> Based on the kernel's fallthrough, introducing evl_fallthrough would
>> avoid all kinds of conflicts (IMHO):
>>
>> #ifndev evl_fallthrough
>> #if __has_attribute(__fallthrough__)
>> # define evl_fallthrough __attribute__((__fallthrough__))
>> #else
>> # define evl_fallthrough do {} while (0) /* fallthrough */
>> #endif
>> #endif
>>
>> All evl internal users would have to be migrated.
>
> In that case, wouldn't it make sense to migrate *all* macros in
> compiler.h to an evl-prefix (nonwithstanding the fact that it's gonna
> break a lot of code)? Or are they supposed to be already defined and
> compiler.h is here just as a fallback (in which case, it makes sense to
> stick with the __ prefix) ?
>
I'd favor the fallthrough -> __fallthrough option to align on other
macros from compiler.h. Using the evl_ prefix for generic,
compiler-level code looks odd.
--
Philippe.
