Hi Marek, On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 09:59:39PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > 2016-07-11 Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> > > PR c/7652 > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_builtin_vectorized_libmass): Likewise.
Likewise? Like what? :-) > --- gcc/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c > +++ gcc/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c > @@ -5459,6 +5459,7 @@ rs6000_builtin_vectorized_libmass (combined_fn fn, tree > type_out, > CASE_CFN_POW: > n_args = 2; > /* fall through */ > + gcc_fallthrough (); As mentioned elsewhere, please remove comments saying just "fall through" when adding the new statement. > @@ -14398,6 +14401,8 @@ altivec_expand_ld_builtin (tree exp, rtx target, bool > *expandedp) > break; > case ALTIVEC_BUILTIN_LD_INTERNAL_2di: > icode = CODE_FOR_vector_altivec_load_v2di; > + /* XXX Really? */ > + gcc_fallthrough (); > case ALTIVEC_BUILTIN_LD_INTERNAL_1ti: > icode = CODE_FOR_vector_altivec_load_v1ti; > break; Yeah, that's a bug obviously. We'll fix it. > @@ -30191,6 +30200,7 @@ rs6000_adjust_cost (rtx_insn *insn, rtx link, > rtx_insn *dep_insn, int cost) > && (INSN_CODE (dep_insn) >= 0) > && (get_attr_type (dep_insn) == TYPE_MFFGPR)) > return 2; > + gcc_fallthrough (); > > default: > break; Better to put an extra "break" here. That is usually true if the next statement (after one or more labels) is a break. > --- gcc/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md > +++ gcc/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.md > @@ -8094,6 +8094,8 @@ > case 0: > if (TARGET_STRING) > return \"stswi %1,%P0,16\"; > + /* XXX Really fallthru? */ > + gcc_fallthrough (); > case 1: > return \"#\"; Yes, really :-) This code is probably better written without a switch statement at all, but oh well. I like the new warning, and I'd like to see it in -Wextra. It finds real problems that are easy to correct. It does trigger a lot on existing code, but -Wextra is not -Wall. Segher
