arphaman added a comment.
I looked at the way `HasFallthroughStmt` is used, and it didn't seem so, no.
It's used in the following manner in AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp:
bool FallThroughDiagFull =
!Diags.isIgnored(diag::warn_unannotated_fallthrough, D->getLocStart());
bool FallThroughDiagPerFunction = !Diags.isIgnored(
diag::warn_unannotated_fallthrough_per_function, D->getLocStart());
if (FallThroughDiagFull || FallThroughDiagPerFunction ||
fscope->HasFallthroughStmt) {
DiagnoseSwitchLabelsFallthrough(S, AC, !FallThroughDiagFull);
}
So it seems to me that even if `HasFallthroughStmt` isn't cleared, the analysis
won't show up anything different for a function that re-used the scope info,
because when diagnostics are ignored and the flag actually leads to incorrect
call to `DiagnoseSwitchLabelsFallthrough `, the analysis won't show any
warnings since the diagnostics are ignored. And likewise if one of the
diagnostics is enabled then it doesn't matter if `HasFallthroughStmt` is true,
so we won't be able to observe a difference there.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22770
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
