On 08/04/2016 06:36 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 27 Jul 2016, Marek Polacek wrote:
And this is the rest. Either I just adjusted a falls through comment,
or I added __builtin_fallthrough (). These were the cases where I was
fairly sure that the fall through is intentional.
I saw one case where I think the warning is a bit over-active:
@@ -42072,6 +42089,7 @@ rdseed_step:
case IX86_BUILTIN_ADDCARRYX64:
icode = CODE_FOR_addcarrydi;
mode0 = DImode;
+ gcc_fallthrough ();
handlecarry:
arg0 = CALL_EXPR_ARG (exp, 0); /* unsigned char c_in. */
I.e. it also warns if the following label is not a case label but a normal
one. I don't think this counts as a classical fall-through and it IMHO
should not be warned about nor should it be marked.
It's probably the same underlying issue I saw with a false-positive in
one of the other patches.
jeff
