Added in r211676.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
