nathanchance added a comment. In D107933#2942430 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107933#2942430>, @xbolva00 wrote:
> Yes, something like that, plus I think you want put > UnreachableCodeFallthrough into group UnreachableCode as well. So you would recommend adding it to `UnreachableCode` rather than `UnreachableCodeAggressive`? In D107933#2942432 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107933#2942432>, @dblaikie wrote: > Probably still worth fixing the bug too? (though maybe not a priority once > it's moved out into -Wunreachable-code) - though the general fix, as > discussed on the bug (comment 18 and 19 about why this doesn't already > produce an unreachable-code warning), may require a significant amount of > work. I guess not warning on fallthrough attributes that are preceded by an if statement with an integer constant would remove all problematic instances in the kernel I believe. I am just not sure how to put that into code :) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D107933/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D107933 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
