lebedev.ri added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D37808#869810, @Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D37808#869612, @JonasToth wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D37808#869602, @Eugene.Zelenko wrote: > > > > > I think will be good idea to extend -Wswitch diagnostics. > > > > > > Ok. But it will introduce new warnings to llvm codebase itself. I prepare > > some example output i found right now. > > > If number of them will not be huge, it'll be worth to fix before extended > -Wswitch will be committed. The other way around, all new warnings must to be fixed first, before committing the new diagnostic itself. I might agree that the part of this check that is handling `switch()` might indeed be better off extending `-Wswitch` (as several new flags `-Wswitch-missing-default`, `-Wswitch-empty`, `-Wswitch-prefer-if`, or something like that) But then a much greater thought shall be put into ensuring quality of the new diagnostic. Oh, and i'd say the `WarnOnMissingElse` should *not* be moved to clang diagnostic. At least right now it will result in many false-positives. E.g. what would it say about void maybefalse(int i) { if (i > 0) { return; } else if (i <= 0) { return; } https://reviews.llvm.org/D37808 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
