On 05/23/2016 12:16 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Can we document what a programmer needs to do to suppress the warning? My
worry is that the warning will be too unpredictable to be useful.
Why would you suppress the warning? Just delete the code that cannot be
executed anyway. And what is unpredictable? You don't want the compiler
to warn on
switch(x) {
found = 1;
case 1:
...
?
Oh, I misread what the patch was about. It looks sufficiently
predictable to do this the GIMPLE level (but it's odd if that's indeed
the architecturally correct choice).
Thanks,
Florian