https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91432
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Useful for what? What exactly is an advantage to require attribute at such a
place? Nothing will warn if you put it there, but I don't see a rationale for
requiring it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91432
--- Comment #7 from Joe Perches ---
What could be useful is to add yet another --extra-strict-fallthrough warning
flag that would make it possible for these cases to have a warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91432
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Nick Desaulniers from comment #5)
> > Not warning in this case is a very intentional part of those design
> > decisions.
>
> Can you provide a link to the discussion about this specific case?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91432
--- Comment #5 from Nick Desaulniers ---
> Not warning in this case is a very intentional part of those design decisions.
Can you provide a link to the discussion about this specific case?
Is re-evaluating the decision out of the question?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91432
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91432
Nick Desaulniers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ndesaulniers at google dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91432
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91432
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
The warning basically says "you may have forgotten 'break;'". If it falls
through to break anyway, what difference does it make if I add a redundant
break?
