On Fri, 2018-02-09 at 10:26 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 10:08:09AM +0100, Ulf Hermann wrote: > > > [...] > > > +#ifdef HAVE_FALLTHROUGH > > > + __attribute__ ((fallthrough)); > > > +#endif > > > [...] > > > > I would like to see this stanza wrapped in a macro, so that we only > > have one "#ifdef HAVE_FALLTHROUGH" in the code, not another one in > > every place we want to fall through. See the "internal_function" > > macro defined in lib/eu-config.h for a similar case. > > Agreed. Having 4 lines for a fallthrough instead of 1 is really too > much. Also could you explain a bit more why you would like this? > The advantage of the comments really is that they should work > everywhere.
I'm attempting to build Yocto using Icecream to do distributed compiling. Icecream pre-processes the file before sending it to the remote compiling node, thus removing the comments and triggering the error. There is a fix in Icecream to allow it to not remove comments when pre- processing, but it will be a while before that change (which hasn't been released yet) trickles down to all the end Icecream users. I figured making the change here wouldn't hurt in the meantime. > > If the comment really doesn't work in your situation maybe we could > do > like gnulib did: > http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/commit/?id=11fdf80b21f2b4 > 0a10687b9a3d16c852b19d512c > > The idea is that those versions of GCC that support > -Wimplicit-fallthrough also have support for the __attribute__ > ((fallthrough)) statement. So they can always be used together. Yes, that is cleaner and makes more sense. I will change my patch to do that. Thanks, Joshua Watt > > Cheers, > > Mark
