MaskRay added a comment. In D131346#3706216 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131346#3706216>, @nemanjai wrote:
> Why? There are many years of precedent for using `LLVM_FALLTHROUGH` and it is > very clear and obvious. What do we gain by getting rid of it? > Don't get me wrong, I am not super opposed to using a standard string instead > of an LLVM-specific macro. However, it seems that this leaves us with a > mixture of the macro and the standard attribute. If we are ready to replace > all occurrences in all projects and get rid of the macro altogether (with > some warning to downstream users), that seems reasonable. Replacing only some > of them seems worse than what we now have. I will try removing all `LLVM_FALLTHROUGH`. The per-project approach just finds what may be missing from various bots. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D131346/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D131346 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
