Yes, the extra test would be good. Thanks! On 24 Jun 2014 18:08, "Alexander Kornienko" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
