[Bug c/77955] -Wimplicit-fallthrough=1 issue

2016-10-12 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77955 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/77955] -Wimplicit-fallthrough=1 issue

2016-10-12 Thread trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77955 --- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4) > It'll be hard to "fix" the first testcase: > . Thanks. The testcase from comment 3 is a dup of

[Bug c/77955] -Wimplicit-fallthrough=1 issue

2016-10-12 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77955 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- It'll be hard to "fix" the first testcase: .

[Bug c/77955] -Wimplicit-fallthrough=1 issue

2016-10-12 Thread trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77955 --- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- Another issue: markus@x4 /tmp % cat fall.c void bar(int); template void foo(int i, bool bo) { switch (i) { case 1: if (!bo) break; // Fall through. case 2: bar(2); default:

[Bug c/77955] -Wimplicit-fallthrough=1 issue

2016-10-12 Thread trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77955 --- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1) > (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #0) > > As you can see gcc issues a bogus warning and doesn't warn for the case 2 > > fallthrough. > > It

[Bug c/77955] -Wimplicit-fallthrough=1 issue

2016-10-12 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77955 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment