Re: Implement -Wswitch-fallthrough: rs6000

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 03:35:10PM -0700, Bruce Korb wrote: > Actually, it occurs to me: > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: > > My current implementation warns here, but the warning can be suppressed > > by adding /* FALLTHRU */ or [...] > > that the

Re: Implement -Wswitch-fallthrough: rs6000

Actually, it occurs to me: On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: > My current implementation warns here, but the warning can be suppressed > by adding /* FALLTHRU */ or [...] that the traditional "lint-ean" spelling is "/* FALLTHROUGH */", so why would the

Re: Implement -Wswitch-fallthrough: rs6000

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: > Most likely what you saw was in cxx_pretty_printer::declaration_specifiers. I only saw it once and, of course, it was once too often. ;) If you fix it, it would sooth my sensibilities as the fixincludes maintainer,

Re: Implement -Wswitch-fallthrough: rs6000

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:30:34AM -0700, Bruce Korb wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 01:36:02PM -0700, Bruce Korb wrote: > > [[putrid code deleted]] > >> Does this patch mean that the above got fixed? I mean, if you're > >> going to fret over linguistic tags to make falling through explicit, >

Re: Implement -Wswitch-fallthrough: rs6000

> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 01:36:02PM -0700, Bruce Korb wrote: > [[putrid code deleted]] >> Does this patch mean that the above got fixed? I mean, if you're >> going to fret over linguistic tags to make falling through explicit, >> it would seem the above code is pretty sore-thumby, yes? > > My

Re: Implement -Wswitch-fallthrough: rs6000

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 01:36:02PM -0700, Bruce Korb wrote: > I'm curious about this. In the process of developing a code analysis > tool, I found some GCC code that was, basically: > > switch (v) { > case 0: > if (e) { > do_something(); > } else { > case 1: > do_something_else(); >

Re: Implement -Wswitch-fallthrough: rs6000

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 04:42:21PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 07/12/2016 04:19 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > >>>@@ -30191,6 +30200,7 @@ rs6000_adjust_cost (rtx_insn *insn, rtx link, > >>>rtx_insn *dep_insn, int cost) > >>> && (INSN_CODE (dep_insn) >= 0) > >>>

Re: Implement -Wswitch-fallthrough: rs6000

On 07/12/2016 04:19 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: @@ -30191,6 +30200,7 @@ rs6000_adjust_cost (rtx_insn *insn, rtx link, rtx_insn *dep_insn, int cost) && (INSN_CODE (dep_insn) >= 0) && (get_attr_type (dep_insn) == TYPE_MFFGPR)) return 2; +

Re: Implement -Wswitch-fallthrough: rs6000

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 09:10:54AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 09:59:39PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > > 2016-07-11 Marek Polacek > > > > PR c/7652 > > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_builtin_vectorized_libmass):

Re: Implement -Wswitch-fallthrough: rs6000

Hi Marek, On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 09:59:39PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > 2016-07-11 Marek Polacek > > PR c/7652 > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_builtin_vectorized_libmass): Likewise. Likewise? Like what? :-) > --- gcc/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c > +++

Re: Implement -Wswitch-fallthrough: rs6000

I'm curious about this. In the process of developing a code analysis tool, I found some GCC code that was, basically: switch (v) { case 0: if (e) { do_something(); } else { case 1: do_something_else(); } } Does this patch mean that the above got fixed? I mean, if you're going to

Re: Implement -Wswitch-fallthrough: rs6000

2016-07-11 Marek Polacek PR c/7652 * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_builtin_vectorized_libmass): Likewise. (rs6000_legitimate_offset_address_p): Likewise. (rs6000_emit_move): Likewise. (altivec_expand_ld_builtin): Likewise.