[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3499a5a2058c246d48f8eb96682ce371833563b2.camel@perches.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 02:30:35 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Shawn Landden <shawn@....icu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use fall-through attribute rather than magic comments
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists