On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 7:21 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > > On 6/3/21 6:04 am, Gedare Bloom wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:48 AM Sebastian Huber > > <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > >> > >> On 05/03/2021 19:40, Joel Sherrill wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 12:25 PM Sebastian Huber > >>> <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de > >>> <mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 05/03/2021 16:27, Gedare Bloom wrote: > >>> > >>> > Should we add a macro for this, e.g., "RTEMS_CASE_NO_BREAK" so > >>> that we > >>> > can update them in future if needed for other tools? > >>> I would just pick a name which is understood by GCC, clang, and > >>> Coverity. I guess other tools will understand this or why did you > >>> buy them? > >>> > >>> > >>> Well we didn't pay for any of those but are you wanting a macro or > >>> just the comment? > >> > >> I would just use a comment which is understood by GCC, clang, and > >> Coverity. What does Linux use? > >> > > That's fine, if there is a de facto standard to use, we can go for it. > > Looking at the option documentation gcc supports a lot of different possible > ways and the warning option can change what is selected. > > Do we allow all that gcc allows? I hope not. >
As with other things we should provide a portable way to maintain it. I would suggest adding to basedefs.h: #define RTEMS_CASE_FALL_THROUGH macro as reasonably simple. We can debate a few variations RTEMS_CASE_FALLTHRU is short and sufficient. Most likely we'll never have to change it, but this will simplify code review and avoid typos /* fall-trough */ > Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
