https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81275
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|5.5 |6.5
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81275
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Marek, could we reuse the fallthrough warning infrastructure for this to
> determine whether there is a possible fallthrough or not?
> Though, trying:
> int
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81275
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81275
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
To get rid of the warning just with -fsanitize=threads we could do:
--- gcc/tree-eh.c.jj2017-07-14 13:04:47.0 +0200
+++ gcc/tree-eh.c 2017-07-25 17:09:58.279461377 +0200
@@ -1598,7 +1598,8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81275
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
You get the same thing with any other cleanup, say:
struct C { C (); ~C (); };
int
foo (int a, int b)
{
C c;
switch (a)
{
case 0:
switch (b)
{
default:
return 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81275
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81275
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
