Author: rsmith
Date: Mon Mar 7 18:32:55 2016
New Revision: 262881
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=262881&view=rev
Log:
P0188R1: add support for standard [[fallthrough]] attribute. This is almost
exactly the same as clang's existing [[clang::fallthrough]] attribute, which
has been upd
This causes clang to warn on
default: assert (false); HB_FALLTHROUGH;
The fallthrough needs to be there for release builds, but now it must not
be there for debug builds. I suppose this means projects now need an
UNREACHED_CASE macro that expands to assert(false) in debug and to
fallthrough in
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Nico Weber wrote:
> This causes clang to warn on
>
> default: assert (false); HB_FALLTHROUGH;
What follows this? (A case label?) What warning is being produced?
> The fallthrough needs to be there for release builds, but now it must not be
> there for debug buil
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Nico Weber wrote:
> > This causes clang to warn on
> >
> > default: assert (false); HB_FALLTHROUGH;
>
> What follows this? (A case label?) What warning is being produced?
>
A case label. Full snippet:
https
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Nico Weber wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Nico Weber wrote:
>> > This causes clang to warn on
>> >
>> > default: assert (false); HB_FALLTHROUGH;
>>
>> What follows this? (A case label?) What w
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Nico Weber wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Richard Smith
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Nico Weber wrote:
> >> > This causes clang to warn on
> >> >
> >> > default: assert (
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Nico Weber wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Richard Smith
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Nico Weber wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Richard Smith
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Nico Weber
>> wrote:
>>
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Nico Weber wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Nico Weber wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Richard Smith
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Nico Weber wrote:
>>> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Richard Smith
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Nico Weber wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Nico Weber wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Nico Weber wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Richard Smith
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Nico Weber wrote:
>
