On: void foo (int n) { void g(), h(), i(); switch (n) { case 1: case 2: g(); [[fallthrough]]; case 3: // warning on fallthrough discouraged do { [[fallthrough]]; // error: next statement is not part of the same substatement execution } while (false); case 6: do { [[fallthrough]]; // error: next statement is not part of the same substatement execution } while (n--); case 7: while (false) { [[fallthrough]]; // error: next statement is not part of the same substatement execution } case 5: h(); case 4: // implementation may warn on fallthrough i(); [[fallthrough]]; // error } } mentioned in https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D2552R1.pdf we don't diagnose misplaced [[fallthrough]] in 2 spots. The original dump shows: switch (n) { case 1:; case 2:; <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt g () >>>>>; <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt .FALLTHROUGH () >>>>>; case 3:; <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt .FALLTHROUGH () >>>>>; case 6:; <D.2778>:; <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt .FALLTHROUGH () >>>>>; if (<<cleanup_point n-- != 0>>) goto <D.2778>; else goto <D.2776>; <D.2776>:; case 7:; goto <D.2779>; <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt .FALLTHROUGH () >>>>>; <D.2779>:; case 5:; <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt h () >>>>>; case 4:; <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt i () >>>>>; <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt .FALLTHROUGH () >>>>>; } so the reason we don't warn in the do { ... } while (false); case is that it disappears probably during genericize_c_loop and the while (false) case because the genericization in that case makes the loop body followed by artificial label.
Apparently this is https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#2406 which we probably never implemented.
And looking at the C wording in n2596.pdf, seems it is different again: "The next block item(6.8.2) that would be encountered after a fallthrough declaration shall be a case label or default label associated with the smallest enclosing switch statement." So, if my understanding is well, int j = 0; switch (n) { case 1: for (int i = 0; i < 1; ++i) { [[fallthrough]]; // Invalid in both C and C++ } case 2: while (++j < 2) { [[fallthrough]]; // Invalid in both C and C++ } case 3: do { [[fallthrough]]; // Invalid in both C and C++ } while (0); case 4: if (1) { [[fallthrough]]; // Invalid in C, valid in C++? } case 5: for (int i = 0; i < 1; ++i) [[fallthrough]]; // Invalid in C++, dunno about C case 6: while (++j < 2) [[fallthrough]]; // Invalid in C++, dunno about C case 7: do [[fallthrough]]; // Invalid in C++, dunno about C while (0); case 8: if (1) [[fallthrough]]; // Dunno about either C or C++ case 9: { [[fallthrough]]; // Invalid in C, valid in C++? } default: break; }
On Tue, 8 Nov 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs wrote: > And looking at the C wording in n2596.pdf, seems it is different again: That's a very old version. N3054 is the most recent public draft (SC22 N5777 is more recent than that and is the actual CD ballot text). > "The next block item(6.8.2) that would be encountered after a fallthrough > declaration shall be a case label or default label associated with the smallest > enclosing switch statement." It's not exactly clear what "next block item" is for any of the examples you give - next lexically (OK once the current one is exited) or in execution (no good for a Constraint)? And thus not clear that any of these are invalid. I've noted that the inconsistency with C++ should be raised in an NB comment.
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <jakub@gcc.gnu.org>: https://gcc.gnu.org/g:52eedfa00960f2d255ec542626e3531a65aa8bb8 commit r14-5561-g52eedfa00960f2d255ec542626e3531a65aa8bb8 Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> Date: Fri Nov 17 15:43:31 2023 +0100 c++: Implement C++ DR 2406 - [[fallthrough]] attribute and iteration statements The following patch implements CWG 2406 - [[fallthrough]] attribute and iteration statements The genericization of some loops leaves nothing at all or just a label after a body of a loop, so if the loop is later followed by case or default label in a switch, the fallthrough statement isn't diagnosed. The following patch implements it by marking the IFN_FALLTHROUGH call in such a case, such that during gimplification it can be pedantically diagnosed even if it is followed by case or default label or some normal labels followed by case/default labels. While looking into this, I've discovered other problems. expand_FALLTHROUGH_r is removing the IFN_FALLTHROUGH calls from the IL, but wasn't telling that to walk_gimple_stmt/walk_gimple_seq_mod, so the callers would then skip the next statement after it, and it would return non-NULL if the removed stmt was last in the sequence. This could lead to wi->callback_result being set even if it didn't appear at the very end of switch sequence. The patch makes use of wi->removed_stmt such that the callers properly know what happened, and use different way to handle the end of switch sequence case. That change discovered a bug in the gimple-walk handling of wi->removed_stmt. If that flag is set, the callback is telling the callers that the current statement has been removed and so the innermost walk_gimple_seq_mod shouldn't gsi_next. The problem is that wi->removed_stmt is only reset at the start of a walk_gimple_stmt, but that can be too late for some cases. If we have two nested gimple sequences, say GIMPLE_BIND as the last stmt of some gimple seq, we remove the last statement inside of that GIMPLE_BIND, set wi->removed_stmt there, don't do gsi_next correctly because already gsi_remove moved us to the next stmt, there is no next stmt, so we return back to the caller, but wi->removed_stmt is still set and so we don't do gsi_next even in the outer sequence, despite the GIMPLE_BIND (etc.) not being removed. That means we walk the GIMPLE_BIND with its whole sequence again. The patch fixes that by resetting wi->removed_stmt after we've used that flag in walk_gimple_seq_mod. Nothing really uses that flag after the outermost walk_gimple_seq_mod, it is just a private notification that the stmt callback has removed a stmt. 2023-11-17 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> PR c++/107571 gcc/ * gimplify.cc (expand_FALLTHROUGH_r): Use wi->removed_stmt after gsi_remove, change the way of passing fallthrough stmt at the end of sequence to expand_FALLTHROUGH. Diagnose IFN_FALLTHROUGH with GF_CALL_NOTHROW flag. (expand_FALLTHROUGH): Change loc into array of 2 location_t elts, don't test wi.callback_result, instead check whether first elt is not UNKNOWN_LOCATION and in that case pedwarn with the second location. * gimple-walk.cc (walk_gimple_seq_mod): Clear wi->removed_stmt after the flag has been used. * internal-fn.def (FALLTHROUGH): Mention in comment the special meaning of the TREE_NOTHROW/GF_CALL_NOTHROW flag on the calls. gcc/c-family/ * c-gimplify.cc (genericize_c_loop): For C++ mark IFN_FALLTHROUGH call at the end of loop body as TREE_NOTHROW. gcc/testsuite/ * g++.dg/DRs/dr2406.C: New test.
Should be implemented now.