aaron.ballman added a comment. In D107933#2944135 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107933#2944135>, @nathanchance wrote:
> In D107933#2942430 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107933#2942430>, @xbolva00 > wrote: > >> Yes, something like that, plus I think you want put >> UnreachableCodeFallthrough into group UnreachableCode as well. > > So you would recommend adding it to `UnreachableCode` rather than > `UnreachableCodeAggressive`? I would recommend adding it to `UnreachableCode` as I don't see this being a particularly aggressive unreachable warning. FWIW, I would be opposed to dropping the diagnostic entirely as the standard recommends diagnosing an unreachable fallthrough statement (https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.attr.fallthrough#2.sentence-2 and the similar wording in C2x 6.7.11.5p3. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D107933/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D107933 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
