Re: Add "-Wimplicit-fallthrough" to default flags (was Re: pgsql:Support FETCH FIRST WITH TIES) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Julien Rouhaud
Subject Re: Add "-Wimplicit-fallthrough" to default flags (was Re: pgsql:Support FETCH FIRST WITH TIES)
Date
Msg-id CAOBaU_auOcrUp2G5BkPStk823doZHA4B=7qAu+e7BeK2f7j7ng@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Add "-Wimplicit-fallthrough" to default flags (was Re: pgsql: Support FETCH FIRST WITH TIES)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Add "-Wimplicit-fallthrough" to default flags (was Re: pgsql:Support FETCH FIRST WITH TIES)  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:40 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 3:41 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> Why?  It uses "fallthrough" which is a legal spelling per level 4.
>
> > GCC documentation mentions [ \t]*FALLTHR(OUGH|U)[ \t]* for level 4
> > (out of the view other alternatives), which AFAICT is case sensitive
> > (level 3 has fall(s | |-)?thr(ough|u)[ \t.!]*(-[^\n\r]*)?).
>
> Oh, I'd missed that that was case sensitive.  Ugh --- that seems
> unreasonable.  Maybe we'd better settle for level 3 after all;
> I don't think there's much room to doubt the intentions of a
> comment spelled that way.

Agreed.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: COPY, lock release and MVCC
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: gcov coverage data not full with immediate stop