On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 7:20 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote:
> I hacked up a cheap version of a warning for defaults in switches that > already cover all cases in an enum (the warning is in excess_default.diff - > given some discussion with Chandler on IRC I don't think we consider this to > be sufficiently high quality to be checked in, but I wouldn't mind some > other opinions/thoughts (the issue was that it might need to use the CFG to > ensure that it's not reachable via loops nested in the switch or gotos, > fallthroughs etc)) and I found/fixed the following cases > (excess_default_fixes.diff) > (bump) While I realize the added compiler warning needs work (lots of it - CFG analysis & all that as mentioned/discussed with Ted), is there any interest in having the fixes checked in? (I have a similar CR for the llvm code too that I might not worry about bumping until this one gets resolved, one way or another (I'm not sure if the LLVM core developers have quite the same adherence/preference for this particular convention as the Clang developers)) - David
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
