[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190625072015.GO3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:20:15 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
Shawn Landden <shawn@....icu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 01:57:49PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > Once the C++17 `__attribute__((fallthrough))` is more widely handled by C compilers,
> I doubt waiting is better.
> If the latest compilers catch it, it's
> probably good enough.
Yeah, I don't see the point either; GCC does it, and that's all I really
care about.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists