On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 12:27 AM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 07:14:13PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > From the GCC manual: > > > > fallthrough > > > > The fallthrough attribute with a null statement serves as a > > fallthrough statement. It hints to the compiler that a statement > > that falls through to another case label, or user-defined label > > in a switch statement is intentional and thus the -Wimplicit-fallthrough > > warning must not trigger. The fallthrough attribute may appear > > at most once in each attribute list, and may not be mixed with > > other attributes. It can only be used in a switch statement > > (the compiler will issue an error otherwise), after a preceding > > statement and before a logically succeeding case label, > > or user-defined label. > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Statement-Attributes.html > > Do we know if coverity understands the fallthrough attribute? One of > the reasons why I started using /* fallthrough */ is because it kept > Coverity happy. If Coverity is like gcc, they should be doing both (i.e. I see the comment parsing as an "extra" that gcc did, but the "basic stuff" is the attribute -- and I would guess it is way easier for them to support than the comment parsing). But I cannot test it myself :-( Someone, please? However, if I understood Greg correctly in his reply to the cover letter, he replied that Coverity knows about it (?). > > If the conversion from /* fallthrough */ to the __fallthrough__ > attribute means that we start gethting a lot of Coverity warnings, > that would be unfortunate. OTOH, if this is getting standardized, > maybe we can get Coverity to understand this attribute? Indeed! That would be the best for everyone, including Coverity customers. Cheers, Miguel
