| From: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add "-Wimplicit-fallthrough" to default flags (was Re: pgsql: Support FETCH FIRST WITH TIES) |
| Date: | 2020-04-12 15:25:21 |
| Message-ID: | C719E70C-6066-4E8C-8659-A01D758DC88E@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers Postg토토SQL : Postg토토SQL |
> On Apr 12, 2020, at 7:55 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Poking around in the archives, it seems like the only previous formal
> proposal to add -Wimplicit-fallthrough was in the context of a much
> more aggressive proposal to make a lot of non-Wall warnings into
> errors [1], which people did not like.
That was from me.
> The only more-restrictive alternative, short of disabling
> the comments altogether, is
>
> * -Wimplicit-fallthrough=4 case sensitively matches one of the
> following regular expressions:
>
> *<"-fallthrough">
> *<"@fallthrough@">
> *<"lint -fallthrough[ \t]*">
> *<"[ \t]*FALLTHR(OUGH|U)[ \t]*">
>
> Thoughts?
Naturally, I'm +1 for this.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2020-04-12 15:42:28 | Re: Add "-Wimplicit-fallthrough" to default flags (was Re: pgsql: Support FETCH FIRST WITH TIES) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-04-12 14:55:20 | Re: Add "-Wimplicit-fallthrough" to default flags (was Re: pgsql: Support FETCH FIRST WITH TIES) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2020-04-12 15:29:55 | Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-04-12 15:21:50 | Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup? |