On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 06:04:47PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be better to just walk_gimple_seq with NULL callback_op
> > and non-NULL callback_stmt that would stop on the first real stmt in there?
>
> Ok, such as in the following?
>
> > Also, the above loop looks confusing, I'd be expecting gimple_seq_first_stmt
> > (seq) before testing it for GIMPLE_BIND or casting to gbind.
>
> Well, if I give a GIMPLE_BIND to gimple_seq_first_stmt, it does nothing and
> just returns it, I think.
Yeah, the current implementation has gimple_seq just pointer to the first
stmt. But I'd think it is still nicer to differentiate between sequences
and individual statements in it.
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
Ok, thanks.
> 2016-06-10 Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com>
>
> PR middle-end/71476
> * gimplify.c (maybe_warn_switch_unreachable): Factored out of
> gimplify_switch_expr.
> (warn_switch_unreachable_r): New function.
>
> * c-c++-common/Wswitch-unreachable-4.c: New test.
> * gcc.dg/Wswitch-unreachable-2.c: New test.
> * g++.dg/tm/jump1.C: Move dg-warning.
Jakub
