jfb added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:8192
+def warn_unreachable_stmt_in_switch : Warning<
+ "statement will be never executed">,
InGroup<DiagGroup<"switch-unreachable">>;
def warn_bool_switch_condition : Warning<
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> I thought we had a warning group for this already, and we do, it's
> `-Wunreachable-code`. I think the new diagnostic group be a child of the
> existing one, if we need the group at all.
Agreed.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaStmt.cpp:727
+ unsigned UnpromotedWidth, bool UnpromotedSign,
+ bool &CaseListIsErroneous) {
// In C++11 onwards, this is checked by the language rules.
----------------
This function is super confusing, and that's not your doing... but adding a
`bool&` param kinda piles on. I'd much rather return a `enum class
CaseListIsErroneous { No, Yes }`, and make `enum class UnpromotedSign` as well
while we're here.
================
Comment at: test/SemaCXX/warn-unreachable-stmt-switch.cpp:29
+ label3:
+ x++;
+ case 4:
----------------
Not that I think you should diagnose here, but I'd like to have a comment in
the test saying that it's indeed unreachable, but we don't currently diagnose.
================
Comment at: test/SemaCXX/warn-unreachable-stmt-switch.cpp:49
+ switch (x) {
+ ;
+ case 7:
----------------
Can you also have one like this with typedef and declarations instead of
statements:
```
switch (x) {
using Foo = int;
case 7:
// ...
```
and
```
switch (x) {
int im_confused = 42;
case 7:
// ...
```
This one is terrible but reachable:
```
switch (x) {
({ oh_no: g(x); });
case 7:
goto oh_no;
// ...
```
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D63139/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D63139
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
