On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 02:27:12PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Marek Polacek:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 01:46:08PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> >> I'm also wondering about the situation where not a single break is used
> >> in all of the cases. It would be best not to warn here.
> >
> > This is tricky and I'm afraid all I can offer here is to use the diagnostics
> > pragma to suppress the warning for Duff's device-like constructs.
>
> Would it make sense to apply the fallthrough attribute to the entire
> switch statement to address such scenarios? Currently, that does not
> seem supported.
Where the attribute is allowed or not allowed is currently intentionally
derived from where C++17 allows it.
Jakub
