http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652
Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |alexfh at google dot com
--- Comment #13 from Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google dot com> 2012-09-17
22:00:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> However, I think it's important to note that they implement the very noisy
> behavior of warning for all implicit fall-through. We could make our warning
> much more useful by being silent for empty case statements,
FYI, clang's warning does exactly this, i.e. it doesn't (and never did) warn on
empty case labels. There's also a way to silence this warning in cases where
fallthrough is intended: [[clang::fallthrough]]; construct, which uses custom
C++11 statement attribute clang::fallthrough. There's a doc here:
http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#clang__fallthrough
In an ideal world, it would be great if GCC had a compatible implementation
using C++11 attributes (except for a namespace of the attribute), or for
example, using a built-in function. So that it was possible to have the same
syntax in source code, at least using a macro. Command-line flags compatibility
would also be nice.
Or if you have any reasonable suggestions on how this diagnostic can be made
better, I'll be glad to discuss this.
> and in light of
> other warnings starting with -Wswitch, I would recommend we name the warning
> -Wswitch-fall-through or something similar. If we want to have an additional
> warning that warns for all fall-through, as clang does, we could also add
> -Wswitch-empty-fall-through.
