This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Implement -Wimplicit-fallthrough (version 9)
- From: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus at trippelsdorf dot de>
- To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Rainer Orth <ro at cebitec dot uni-bielefeld dot de>, Marek Polacek <polacek at redhat dot com>, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Arnaud Charlet <charlet at adacore dot com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:39:41 +0200
- Subject: Re: Implement -Wimplicit-fallthrough (version 9)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160920153343.GF19950@redhat.com> <3916173.q8VWCuMk9Z@polaris> <20160927081744.GL7282@tucnak.redhat.com> <1630018.CAxBrgp0y6@polaris>
On 2016.09.27 at 10:46 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > The intent has been that we catch the most common forms, but still require
> > it not to be complete free form. Because, as experience shows, people are
> > extremely creative in these comments, and it is not very good idea to
> > support everything. For ... fall through ... , what is the purpose of
> > those ...s?
>
> No idea, but it has been there for a while and seems perfectly reasonable.
> IMO any sentence containing "fall" and "through/thru/etc" on the same line
> should be accepted, otherwise it's just misplaced pickiness.
+1. Folks will just disable the warning if gcc is not very permissive
when paring existing comments. You cannot expect anyone to change
perfectly fine fall-through comments just to accommodate an arbitrary
gcc style.
--
Markus