subject:"\[Bug c\/79153\] \-Wimplicit\-fallthrough missed warning"

[Bug c/79153] -Wimplicit-fallthrough missed warning

2017-12-01 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79153 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/79153] -Wimplicit-fallthrough missed warning

2017-12-01 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79153 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Dec 1 08:17:06 2017 New Revision: 255298 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255298&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c/79153 * tree.h (SWITCH_BREAK_LABEL_P): Define.

[Bug c/79153] -Wimplicit-fallthrough missed warning

2017-11-30 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79153 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 42758 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42758&action=edit gcc8-pr79153.patch Untested fix.

[Bug c/79153] -Wimplicit-fallthrough missed warning

2017-11-30 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79153 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8

[Bug c/79153] -Wimplicit-fallthrough missed warning

2017-07-26 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79153 --- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek --- No WONTFIX, we ought to be able to handle this.

[Bug c/79153] -Wimplicit-fallthrough missed warning

2017-01-23 Thread sirl at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79153 --- Comment #6 from Franz Sirl --- I see. If you really close it as WONTFIX, could this small deficiency at least be documented in the manual? I guess the non-warning case happens only when the switch-statement directly (no other statements in be

[Bug c/79153] -Wimplicit-fallthrough missed warning

2017-01-20 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79153 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek --- I'd even go as far as saying that this is WONTFIX and we will not warn for nested switches.

[Bug c/79153] -Wimplicit-fallthrough missed warning

2017-01-20 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79153 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- This is probably because although we're handling ifs: 1896 /* Ifs are tricky. */ 1897 if (gimple_code (gsi_stmt (*gsi_p)) == GIMPLE_COND) we're not handling switches like that. Won't be that e

[Bug c/79153] -Wimplicit-fallthrough missed warning

2017-01-20 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79153 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Adding default: break; to the inner switch doesn't help, adding any non-switch statement after the inner switch helps.