On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]>
wrote:
> LGTM
>
> If blocks also need a fix, feel free to do that in a later patch :)
>
Oh, you're right, I didn't think about blocks. For some reason bodies of
blocks are not duplicated in the AST, as it is with lambdas, so the warning
works fine with them. If you want, I can add a test for this:
$ cat test/SemaCXX/switch-implicit-fallthrough-blocks.cpp
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -fblocks -std=c++11
-Wimplicit-fallthrough %s
void fallthrough_in_blocks() {
void (^block)() = ^{
int x = 0;
switch (x) {
case 0:
x++;
[[clang::fallthrough]]; // no diagnostics
case 1:
x++;
default: // \
expected-warning{{unannotated fall-through between switch labels}} \
expected-note{{insert 'break;' to avoid fall-through}}
break;
}
};
block();
}
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
