This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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;
+	    gcc_fallthrough ();

           default:
             break;


Better to put an extra "break" here.  That is usually true if the next
statement (after one or more labels) is a break.


The next version of the warning should recognize this scenario and shouldn't
warn, thus no change will be needed.
Actually I think this is one case where you could unconditionally warn - falling through to a break seems like bad practice, it invites errors when someone places new code before the break. 


Bernd
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]