dblaikie added a comment. In D107933#2944204 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107933#2944204>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> 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. (totally not to derail this, but... - I'm not sure that wording in the spec is especially informative/worth worrying about too much. If we have a warning we know isn't especially informative and is off-by-default, I'm not sure it makes too much difference whether we have it all. The spec doesn't have a lot of practice spec'ing warnings, which have a bunch of nuance that the spec doesn't usually have to deal with) 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
