https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91432
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Nick Desaulniers from comment #5) > > Not warning in this case is a very intentional part of those design > > decisions. > > Can you provide a link to the discussion about this specific case? The discussions are on gcc-patches mailing list, look into archives from July 2016 to August or September, initially with -Wswitch-fallthrough in the subject, later -Wimplicit-fallthrough. > Is re-evaluating the decision out of the question? Yes. It is pointless to start warning about code that obviously can't do any harm, it will only alienate users that will need to mark up more code. The work Marek has done on this warning started with getting through warnings on gcc itself and on other projects and has been fine tuned on where it is essential not to warn and where false positives can be acceptable.
