On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:15 AM Bernd Petrovitsch <be...@petrovitsch.priv.at> wrote: > > Hi all! > > On 22/10/18 19:54, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:50 AM Bernd Petrovitsch > > <be...@petrovitsch.priv.at> wrote: > [...] > >> PS: clang++ errors with "fallthrough annotation in unreachable code" if > >> [[fallthrough]] is after an assert(). clang-devs there, please, the > >> fallthrough doesn't really generated code (I hope;-). > [...] > > Can you send me a link to a simple reproducer in godbolt (godbolt.org) > > and we'll take a look? > > Does https://godbolt.org/z/2Y4zIo do it - I'm a godbolt-newbie?
Moving the kernel folks to bcc, since we don't need to be discussing C++ on LKML. https://godbolt.org/z/B1fo9Z shows that this works as intended, for cases that cannot be statically proven. I guess I'm looking for a more realistic code sample to show why putting a `break;` statement there is untenable? > > For > ---- snip ---- > #include <cassert> > > int main(void) > { > switch (1) { > default: > assert(0); > [[fallthrough]]; > case 1: > ; > } > return 0; > } > ---- snip ---- > Just "clang++ -Wimplicit-fallthrough -Werror" it ..... > > MfG, > Bernd > -- > "I dislike type abstraction if it has no real reason. And saving > on typing is not a good reason - if your typing speed is the main > issue when you're coding, you're doing something seriously wrong." > - Linus Torvalds -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
