This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Implement -Wimplicit-fallthrough (version 9)


On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 05:04:23PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:54:28PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:48:50AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Just compare that to the number of real bugs the warning found in gcc
> > > >> codebase.  It is really worth it for -Wextra.
> > > >
> > > > All those bugs would also have been found as well when it had simply
> > > > accepted
> > > >   /fall.*thr/i
> > > > anywhere in the preceding comment on one line.  But all the recent
> > > > spelling changes of comments to cater for the strictness exactly shows how
> > > > misguided that is.  The above would accept "Don't fall through" as well.
> > > > I say: so what?
> > > 
> > > I agree.
> > 
> > All right, I'm not opposed to making the comment parsing more benevolent.
> > We still should have enough time to fine-tune it.
> 
> Perhaps we want -Wimplicit-fallthrough{,=1,=2,=3,=4}, where
> =1 would match indeed /fall.*thr/i (note, it will be really costly in this
> case, one will have to parse all comments in detail in the preprocessor,
> so I'd be against making it the default),

Perhaps we could use POSIX regcomp/regex functions; do you (or anyone else)
have an idea how expensive they are and if it's feasible to use them in the
preprocessor?

	Marek


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]