On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 16:58 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 09:35:31AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 08:16 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:32:43AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 07:19 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:04:37PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:

quoted

fallthrough may become a pseudo reserved keyword so this only use of
fallthrough is better renamed to allow it.

Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>

Are you referring to the __attribute__((fallthrough)) statement that gcc
supports?  If so the compiler should by all rights be able to differentiate
between a null statement attribute and a explicit goto and label without the
need for renaming here.  Or are you referring to something else?

Hi.

I sent after this a patch that adds

# define fallthrough                    __attribute__((__fallthrough__))

https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1108577/

So this rename is a prerequisite to adding this #define.

why not just define __fallthrough instead, like we do for all the other
attributes we alias (i.e. __read_mostly, __protected_by, __unused, __exception,
etc)

Because it's not as intelligible when used as a statement.

I think thats somewhat debatable.  __fallthrough to me looks like an internal
macro, whereas fallthrough looks like a comment someone forgot to /* */

I'd rather see:

	switch (foo) {
	case FOO:
		bar |= baz;
		fallthrough;
	case BAR:
		bar |= qux;
		break;
	default:
		error();
	}

than

	switch (foo) {
	case FOO:
		bar |= baz;
		__fallthrough;
	case BAR:
		bar |= qux;
		break;
	default:
		error();
	}

or esoecially

	switch (foo) {
	case FOO:
		bar |= baz;
		/* fallthrough
*/;
	case BAR:
		bar |= qux;
		break;
	default:
		error();
	}

but <shrug>, bikeshed ahoy!...