On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 6:54 PM Nick Desaulniers
<ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:48 AM Miguel Ojeda
> <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 8:29 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Will this work with all of the static tools that are currently looking
> > > for the comment instead? I know coverity handles that, what about
> > > others?
> >
> > I will also contact the different tools about this.
>
> Let's contact the authors of these tools if they don't parse the
> attribute. I prefer to have the attributes rather than specifically
> formatted comments.
Sorry, not sure what you mean -- isn't that what I said? Greg was
asking whether tools would support the attribute equally well compared
to the comment parsing; not the comments.
>
> I do think this may be tricky to provide backwards support for though;
> Miguel, do you have info on which versions of GCC support comments vs
> attribute?
It is in the commit message:
"""
In C mode, GCC supports the __fallthrough__ attribute since 7.1,
the same time the warning and the comment parsing were introduced.
"""
Cheers,
Miguel
