https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91389
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Don't do it then? The no fallthru early discovery isn't perfect and with the
sanitizer instrumentation it gets even harder.
Looks like a dup of PR86899 to me anyway.
If I do a small modification like:
class A {
struct B {
enum {} type;
};
B *m_fn1();
};
struct C { C (); ~C (); };
A::B *A::m_fn1() {
C c;
B *a;
switch (a->type) {
break;
default:
return a;
}
}
then it emits the false positive warning even with just -O0 -Wreturn-type.
I really think it doesn't hurt if people remove the clearly unreachable code
from their code to get rid of this warning.
