On Friday, June 17, 2016 09:56:47 AM Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 6/17/2016 9:51 AM, Bryan Drewery wrote: > > On 6/16/2016 11:13 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:17:19AM -0700, Conrad Meyer wrote: > >>> style(9) nit: /* FALLTHROUGH */ > >> > >> FALLTHROUGH is only applicable when there are executable statements for > >> both cases, and first sequence of statements does not end in break. > >> Look at the switch() example right after the FALLTHROUGH requirement > >> in the style(9), which shows case '?'. > >> > > > > Yes the example shows code in both cases, but the text about it is more > > strict "Elements in a switch statement that cascade should have a > > FALLTHROUGH comment." > > > > My personal opinion does agree with your interpretation. I think we > should clarify style.9 about when to use FALLTHROUGH.
As Bruce often notes, the code samples in style(9) trump the prose if there is a conflict. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone suggest that an empty case body warrants a FALLTHROUGH, and I don't recall ever seeing a single example of it in the tree. I had assumed that the Conrad had just misread the diff and assumed there was still a code block there, not that Conrad actually wanted a FALLTHROUGH for an empty block. In that case, I'm not sure changing style.9 would help as the trigger was misreading the diff, not confusion over the FALLTHROUGH convention. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
