http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |arthur.j.odwyer at gmail
| |dot com
--- Comment #15 from Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com>
2012-11-26 22:49:02 UTC ---
TL;DR — I would like to see GCC and Clang both implement
__builtin_fallthrough().
I believe Lint recognizes the "magic comment" /*FALLTHROUGH*/
case 1:
foo();
/*FALLTHROUGH*/
case 2:
as a hint to suppress the warning. I think EDG's front-end has similar logic;
certainly Green Hills' compiler recognizes /*FALLTHROUGH*/. (My memory is fuzzy
because I no longer work there, but I know that Green Hills recognized a couple
kinds of magic comment before I got there, which would have been six years
ago.) I admit that the "magic comment" approach has problems: for example, you
can't #define a macro to expand to a comment. Also it complicates the parser.
Clang currently suppresses the warning only if the C++11 attribute
[[clang::fallthrough]] is applied to a null statement immediately preceding
"case 2:", but this doesn't work outside of C++11 mode, and it's ridiculously
inappropriate as an industrywide solution (as it contains the word "clang" in
the name of the attribute).
case 1:
foo();
[[clang::fallthrough]];
case 2:
Alternatively, someone in this clang-dev thread has proposed adding a
__builtin_fallthrough() intrinsic that would suppress the warning, which is not
a bad idea at all.
http://clang-developers.42468.n3.nabble.com/should-Wimplicit-fallthrough-require-C-11-td4028144.html
Notice that __builtin_fallthrough() could be #defined away on compilers that
don't support it, and unlike a "magic comment", you can #define something to
expand *to* it as well.
case 1:
foo();
__builtin_fallthrough();
case 2:
I'd like to see __builtin_fallthrough() added to all major compilers. :)
