On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Alexander Kornienko <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi cfe-commits,
>
> This patch handles a specific (but surprisingly common) case when a
> fall-through occurs to a switch label immediately followed by a break;.
> In this case it doesn't make sense to suggest a fall-through annotation,
> almost certainly inserting break; is a good fix-it.
> Example:
>
> switch (x) {
> case 111:
> f();
> case 222: // don't offer "[[clang::fallthrough]];", just "break;"
> break;
> }
>
> Please, review this patch.
>
Seems generally good. I think we have 'isa_or_null' which would simplify
the code implementing it a bit i think? Maybe I've mis-remembered.
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
