On Sun, 28 Nov 2021, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 11/25/2021 6:33 AM, 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
> >
On 11/25/2021 6:33 AM, 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
On Thu, 25 Nov 2021, Michael Matz wrote:
> 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
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
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
