Hello, On Thu, 25 Nov 2021, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> It seems to be a style to place gcc_unreachable () after a > switch that handles all cases with every case returning. > Those are unreachable (well, yes!), so they will be elided > at CFG construction time and the middle-end will place > another __builtin_unreachable "after" them to note the > path doesn't lead to a return when the function is not declared > void. > > So IMHO those explicit gcc_unreachable () serve no purpose, > if they could be replaced by a comment. Never document in comments what you can document in code (IMO). I think the code as-is clearly documents the invariants and expectations and removing the gcc_unreachable() leads to worse sources. Can't you simply exempt warning on unreachable __builtin_unreachable()? It seems an obvious thing that the warning should _not_ warn about, after all, quite clearly, the author is aware of that being unreachable, it says so, right there. Ciao, Michael.
