On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Joonas, > > Quoting Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> On Mon, 2017-11-27 at 16:17 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: >>> >>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases >>> where we are expecting to fall through. >> >> >> I have to say I'm totally not sold on regexps matching comment >> contents. Was something more explicit ever considered? Like: >> >> #define FALLTHROUGH __attribute__((fallthrough)); >> >> With the appropriate version checks, of course. >> > > One of the arguments is that comments lets us leverage the existing static > analyzers. > > We've been discussing this during the last week, feel free to join the > discussion: > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg2659908.html > http://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg2659906.html If we go with existing rules, then either pls patch coding style, or be a bit more liberal in what you accept. E.g. fallthrough vs fall through seems a bit a bikeshed (and will be an endless source of work for you). I'd also claim that "this shouldn't happen, dump a backtrace and hope for the best" style macros like i915's MISSING_CASE or WARN_ON (as the only thing) should count as an auto-fallthrough annotation. >From a quick look, that would cover everything in your patch. -Daniel > > Thanks! > -- > Gustavo A. R. Silva > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
