https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91389
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Forgot to say, if you are just looking for a workaround for the warning (note,
-O2 -Wreturn-type doesn't warn, in this case you need also no optimizations),
then I'd just move the return from the default: cla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91389
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > > I see dead code everywhere in the function, they must have some we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91389
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91389
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> I see dead code everywhere in the function, they must have some weirdo macro
> for cases that wraps everything in case something { ... } break;
Is the 'break;' re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91389
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I see dead code everywhere in the function, they must have some weirdo macro
for cases that wraps everything in case something { ... } break;
Many of those break; statements are dead code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91389
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46688
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46688&action=edit
Original test-case
I'm fine with the approach to remove a dead code. However, I can't easily find
what to change
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91389
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Don't do it then? The no fallthru early discovery isn't perfect and with the
sanitizer instrumentation it gets even harder.
Looks like a dup of PR86899 to me anyway.
If I do a small modification like:
class
