This is a workaround for https://github.com/torproject/stem/issues/63

Fixes bug 34131; bugfix on 0.4.3.1-alpha.

This one is harmless like the others (so far)

GCC added an implicit-fallthrough warning a while back, where it
would complain if you had a nontrivial "case:" block that didn't end
with break, return, or something like that.  Clang recently added
the same thing.

GCC, however, would let you annotate a fall-through as intended by
any of various magic "/* fall through */" comments.  Clang, however,
only seems to like "__attribute__((fallthrough))".  Fortunately, GCC
accepts that too.

A previous commit in this branch defined a FALLTHROUGH macro to do
the right thing if GNUC is defined; here we replace all of our "fall
through" comments with uses of that macro.

This is an automated commit, made with the following perl one-liner:

  #!/usr/bin/perl -i -p
  s#/\* *falls? ?thr.*?\*/#FALLTHROUGH;#i;

(In order to avoid conflicts, I'm applying this script separately to
each maint branch. This is the 0.4.3 version.)

This is an "ours" merge to avoid taking the maint-0.4.2 version of the 34078
fix.

GCC added an implicit-fallthrough warning a while back, where it
would complain if you had a nontrivial "case:" block that didn't end
with break, return, or something like that.  Clang recently added
the same thing.

GCC, however, would let you annotate a fall-through as intended by
any of various magic "/* fall through */" comments.  Clang, however,
only seems to like "__attribute__((fallthrough))".  Fortunately, GCC
accepts that too.

A previous commit in this branch defined a FALLTHROUGH macro to do
the right thing if GNUC is defined; here we replace all of our "fall
through" comments with uses of that macro.

This is an automated commit, made with the following perl one-liner:

  #!/usr/bin/perl -i -p
  s#/\* *falls? ?thr.*?\*/#FALLTHROUGH;#i;

(In order to avoid conflicts, I'm applying this script separately to
each maint branch. This is the 0.4.2 version.)

This is an "ours" merge to avoid taking the 0.4.1 version of the 34078 fix.

GCC added an implicit-fallthrough warning a while back, where it
would complain if you had a nontrivial "case:" block that didn't end
with break, return, or something like that.  Clang recently added
the same thing.

GCC, however, would let you annotate a fall-through as intended by
any of various magic "/* fall through */" comments.  Clang, however,
only seems to like "__attribute__((fallthrough))".  Fortunately, GCC
accepts that too.

A previous commit in this branch defined a FALLTHROUGH macro to do
the right thing if GNUC is defined; here we replace all of our "fall
through" comments with uses of that macro.

This is an automated commit, made with the following perl one-liner:

  #!/usr/bin/perl -i -p
  s#/\* *falls? ?thr.*?\*/#FALLTHROUGH;#i;

(In order to avoid conflicts, I'm applying this script separately to
each maint branch. This is the 0.4.1 version.)

This is an "ours" merge to avoid taking the 0.3.5 fix for 34078.

GCC added an implicit-fallthrough warning a while back, where it
would complain if you had a nontrivial "case:" block that didn't end
with break, return, or something like that.  Clang recently added
the same thing.

GCC, however, would let you annotate a fall-through as intended by
any of various magic "/* fall through */" comments.  Clang, however,
only seems to like "__attribute__((fallthrough))".  Fortunately, GCC
accepts that too.

A previous commit in this branch defined a FALLTHROUGH macro to do
the right thing if GNUC is defined; here we replace all of our "fall
through" comments with uses of that macro.

This is an automated commit, made with the following perl one-liner:

  #!/usr/bin/perl -i -p
  s#/\* *falls? ?thr.*?\*/#FALLTHROUGH;#i;

There's nothing wrong with the comment, but the script I'm about to
apply wouldn't like it.

This macro defers to __attribute__((fallthrough)) on GCC (and
clang).  Previously we had been using GCC's magic /* fallthrough */
comments, but clang very sensibly doesn't accept those.

Since not all compiler recognize it, we only define it when our
configure script detects that it works.

Part of a fix for 34078.

Do not try to stuff "HS_DESC_DECODE_GENERIC_ERROR" (-1) into a
socks5_reply_status_t (enum).  It doesn't actually make sense, and
isn't one of our documented extensions.

(This can only happen on a nonfatal assertion that we haven't seen,
so it probably isn't happening in practice.)

Fixes another case of bug 34077; bugfix on 0.4.3.1-alpha.