On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:29 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Should we just change the way the CFG is built to include edges for > default labels on covered switches all the time? That would fix the > same bug (I'm on the fence about whether it is a bug, myself) in > Clang's -Wunreachable-code. Hi David, Besides the technical solution I proposed in my other email, I thought I'd add one more thing. >From a design perspective, I don't believe what you propose would even be the >right balance. All the other analyses in clang, the dataflow based warnings, >the static analyzer, etc., are fine with the current CFG with respect to how >'default' labels are handled. Should we really weaken the CFG, thus degrading >the precision of all of these analyses, just to make this one warning easier >to implement? Even if I didn't have an idea for a potentially general solution to allow the CFG to better service everyone (and I'm not saying it is perfect; we'd have to evaluate it if we are interested), this seems like the wrong tradeoff to me. If this was a pervasive problem for clients of the CFG, then I think it would be worth considering, but that's why I proposed the "ghost edges" idea as a possible way to satisfy multiple clients, including -Wunreachable-code. Ted
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
