Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Annotate questionable fallthroughs

[Blue Swirl]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> wrote:
> Peter Maydell <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On 20 January 2013 15:54, Blue Swirl <address@hidden> wrote:
> [...]
>> I don't think there's much point adding tons of "XXX" comments
>> when a bunch of these aren't actually wrong code.
>
> Moreover, such comments make them look intentional to static analyzers.
> I doubt lying to our tools is a good idea.

I see. That was not my intention.

>
>>                                                   If you want to fix
>> this I think a better approach would be more focused patches aimed
>> at adding 'break;' or "/* fallthrough */" based on actual human
>> examination of the surrounding code.
>
> Indeed.  I'd gladly provide a list of fall throughs Coverity dislikes.
>
> Additionally, I'd suggest to enforce a suitable convention for new code.
> I find this one sensible: either "break;" or "/* fall through */" is
> required, except right after a case label, a goto, continue, or return
> statement, or function call that never returns.

When Clang implements for example an attribute that can be used in C,
we could add a Clang specific macro. Then all fall through comments
could be replaced with this macro.