On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:31:43AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:26:27AM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:16:33PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > The following patch does a few things:
> > > 1) fixes -Wimplicit-fallthrough -C
> > > (with -C the PREV_FALLTHROUGH flag is on the CPP_COMMENT token, we need
> > > to propagate it to the C/C++ token's flags in the FEs)
> > > 2) it accepts a comment in between /* FALLTHRU */ comment and the
> > > case/default keyword or user label, people often write:
> > > ...
> > > /* FALLTHRU */
> > >
> > > /* Rationale or description of what the following code does. */
> > > case ...:
> > > and forcing users to move their comments after the labels or after the
> > > first label might be too annoying
> > > 3) it adds support for some common FALLTHRU comment styles that appeared
> > > in GCC sources, or in Linux kernel etc., e.g.:
> > >
> > > /*lint -fallthrough */
> > >
> > > /* ... falls through ... */
> > >
> > > /* else fall-through */
> > >
> > > /* Intentional fall through. */
> > >
> > > /* FALLTHRU - some explanation why. */
> >
> > I haven't gone over the patch in detail yet, but I wonder if we should
> > also accept /* Else, fall through. */ (to be found e.g. in
> > aarch64-simd.md).
>
> Clearly people are extremely creative with these comments, maybe it would be
> better to just remove the new additions from the patch I've posted (drop the
> else/intentational/intentationally/... around/!!! around etc., to force
> people to standardize on something), and just apply the fixes and support
> for comments in between.
Obviously you can get a very wide range of opinions here. I like the patch;
while I don't think we should allow complete free form, accepting stuff like
/* ... falls through ... */
or
/* else fall-through */
is a good thing.
Marek
