Re: [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2017-11-28 at 14:37 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Quoting Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> 
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Alan Cox  
> > <gnomes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > The notation in question has been standard in tools like lint since the
> > > end of the 1970s
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > That said, maybe one option would be to annotate the "case:" and
> > "default:" statements if that makes people happier.
> > 
> > IOW, we could do something like
> > 
> >     #define fallthrough __atttibute__((fallthrough))
> > 
> > and then write
> > 
> >     fallthrough case 1:
> >         ...
> > 
> > which while absolutely not traditional, might look and read a bit more
> > logical to people. I mean, it literally _is_ a "fallthrough case", so
> > it makes semantic sense.
> > 
> 
> This is elegant. The thing is that this makes it appear as if there is  
> an unconditional fall through.
> 
> It is not uncommon to have multiple break statements in the same case  
> block and to fall through also.

My preferred syntax would be to use __fallthrough or fallthrough
in the same manner as break;

	switch (foo) {
	case bar:
		bar();
		fallthrough;
	case baz:
		baz();
		break;
	default;
		qux();
		exit(1);
	}