[cfe-commits] [PATCH] Implicit fall-through between switch labels

[Richard Smith]

On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Joe Groff <arcata at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>
> wrote:
> > This patch adds diagnostic of unintentional control flow fall-through
> > between switch labels. It also provides a way to specifically mark a
> switch
> > label with a c++ 11 attribute [[fallthrough]] to specify an intentional
> > fall-through. This also serves as an example of C++ 11 statement
> attributes,
> > and builds upon my recent patch, which introduces support for this
> language
> > feature.
>
> For future-proofing's sake, does the standard provide any guidance for
> naming nonstandardized attributes? Should the attribute be named
> something like 'clang::fallthrough' instead of just 'fallthrough', in
> case a future standard or other implementations provide for a similar
> attribute with different behavior?


Yes, I think so. The attribute namespace mechanism was designed to allow
such vendor extensions without creating problems for future
standardization.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20120421/5e369194/attachment.html>