nathanchance added a comment. > In D107933#2942023 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107933#2942023>, @xbolva00 > wrote: > >> > > GCC does not warn (with common -Wall) for this case, right? I think Clang > should not as well.
Correct, GCC does not warn at all about unreachable fallthrough annotations as far as I am aware. In D107933#2942102 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107933#2942102>, @dblaikie wrote: > In D107933#2942023 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107933#2942023>, @xbolva00 > wrote: > >> ImplicitFallthroughUnreachable could be enabled with -Wunreachable-code, if >> you think we should have it. > > Yeah, some of that was discussed on the bug: > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51094 & I'd still be in favor of that > sort of direction. I might go so far as to say: Maybe we should drop this > warning flag (and/or move it under -Wunreachable-code - questionable, I don't > think anyone's really using that, it's pretty noisy still, I think) entirely > even if no one's willing to reimplement it more robustly... not sure. The kernel does not use `-Wunreachable-code` for this reason and several others; we have explored it in the past <https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1180> and found that there were pretty much no instances where the warnings indicated a bug and kernel maintainers were irritated with some of the patches sent. So moving this warning under there (as `-Wunreachable-code-fallthrough`?) would work for us. I do not have a strong opinion though. I am more than happy to remove the warning entirely as well. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D107933/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D107933 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
