On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:16:57AM +0200, Rüdiger Meier wrote:
> > > BTW just for cosmetics. Maybe we should rename UL_FALLTHROUGH to
> > > __ul_fallthrough
> > > like we have already __ul_calloc_size. IMO it would look more obvious to the
> > > reader.
> >
> > I don't have strong opinion about that, changed to one you proposed.
>
> Thanks, let's see whether Karel likes this attribute at all ;)
Hmm...
I don't like "meta-programming" where language keywords are
replaced by local macros, for example we have fallback (in c.h) for all
__attribute__ rather than define local macro for all attributes.
__attribute__((fallthrough))
should be fine on non-__GNUC__ as in this case __attribute__ is empty
macro (see c.h).
Yes, __ul_fallthrough seems better, and __attribute__((fallthrough))
would be the best :-)
It's strange if clang will use a different syntax for the same
things. IMHO it would be better to ignore clang for this attribute.
And I'm not sure if the change is compatible with coverity-scan where
comment line /* fallthrough */ is required, but this not so important
(coverity is maintained, so attribute will be supported one day...).
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
