On 12/9/21 3:58 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 5:21 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>> wrote:
There are some other "unusual" cases worth a look, such as missing
context of any kind except for like and column:
elfnn-riscv.c:3346:7: warning: statement after return is not reachable
[-Wunreachable-code-return]
elfnn-riscv.c:3349:7: warning: statement after return is not reachable
[-Wunreachable-code-return]
elfnn-riscv.c:3352:7: warning: statement after return is not reachable
[-Wunreachable-code-return]
elfnn-riscv.c:3355:7: warning: statement after return is not reachable
[-Wunreachable-code-return]
That file has "return ...; break;" inside a switch. Warning for that is
OK, and we shouldn't need a better warning message. It is pretty
obvious what is wrong.
Yes, it's obvious from code inspection. What I meant is that
the warnings above don't show the code they refer to as other
messages do, like on the second line in:
/src/binutils-gdb/bfd/elf-attrs.c:450:7: warning: statement after return
is not reachable [-Wunreachable-code-return]
450 | break;
| ^~~~~
If they did, no code inspection would be necessary to understand
that the warnings are valid and why (I suggested elsewhere to
add a note pointing to the statement that makes the one in
the warning unreachable; that would help in cases when the first
statement is obscured by a macro, for instance, or far away from
the warning site).
The above were the only warnings I saw in the Binutils build with
this problem (or ever, that I can think of).
Martin
