On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Reid Kleckner via Phabricator via
cfe-commits <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> rnk accepted this revision.
> rnk added a comment.
> This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
>
311561, thanks!
> Looks good!
>
>
>
> ================
> Comment at: test/Sema/warn-unreachable-ms.c:42
> + }
> +}
> ----------------
> rnk wrote:
> > Can we add a test to exercise that this builds the right CFG?
> > ```
> > __try {
> > __try {
> > f();
> > } __except(1) {
> > __leave; // should exit outer try
> > }
> > __leave;
> > f(); // expected-warning{{never be executed}}
> > } __except(1) {
> > }
> > ```
> > Sure. Did you intentionally put two __leaves in there, or do you only
> want the one in the inner __except?
>
> I think both are required to trigger the warning in case f() doesn't
> throw, but I could be wrong.
>
Oh, that way round. But if f() throws and I omit the first __leave, then
the __except() block will just do nothing and fall through to the second
__leave and we'll still get the warning, right?
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
