On 08/16/2016 10:59 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 04:49:30PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
A few more cases where I'm unsure whether the fall through is intended.
Jason, can you please look at the cp/ part?
Given Jason is on PTO this week, can I just commit the patch as-is, modulo
the already-committed tree-complex.c part? We can always revisit these few
cases later. It'd make my next patch submission more manageable.
Richi, would you mind looking at the tree-complex.c bit?
What 'bout the pch.c?
Thanks,
2016-08-11 Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com>
PR c/7652
gcc/
* tree-complex.c (expand_complex_division): Likewise.
gcc/cp/
* call.c (add_builtin_candidate): Add gcc_fallthrough.
* cxx-pretty-print.c (pp_cxx_unqualified_id): Likewise.
* parser.c (cp_parser_skip_to_end_of_statement): Likewise.
(cp_parser_cache_defarg): Likewise.
libcpp/
* pch.c (write_macdef): Add CPP_FALLTHRU.
They obviously don't change behavior, so they're safe in that sense.
And you've got a marker so you can find them later or anyone else
looking at the code knows we weren't sure on these.
OK.
jeff
