gromer added a comment.
OK, the diffs are now un-borked. Sorry for the flailing incompetence.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51812
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
gromer updated this revision to Diff 166558.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51812
Files:
b/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Sema/AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp
Index: b/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Sema/AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp
===
--- b/llvm/tools/clang/lib/
gromer updated this revision to Diff 166545.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51812
Files:
B/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Sema/AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp
Index: B/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Sema/AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp
===
--- B/llvm/tools/clang/lib/
gromer added inline comments.
Comment at: b/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Sema/AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp:601
+case MaybeFallThrough:
+ if (ReturnsValue)
+S.Diag(RBrace, diag::warn_maybe_falloff_nonvoid_coroutine)
rsmith wrote:
> This `if` and the one belo
gromer updated this revision to Diff 166521.
gromer marked 2 inline comments as done.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51812
Files:
B/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Sema/AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp
Index: B/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Sema/AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp
==
rsmith added a comment.
I'm not a fan of the duplication introduced here, but the new code is
definitely more obvious. On balance, this seems like a small improvement, so
let's go for it.
Comment at: b/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Sema/AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp:542-544
+ // cpu_disp
gromer created this revision.
gromer added a reviewer: rsmith.
Herald added subscribers: cfe-commits, modocache.
Split CheckFallThroughForBody into separate implementations for blocks,
lambdas, coroutines, and all other functions. This simplifies the code because
virtually every part of it vari
