This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH to add more FALLTHRU markers
- From: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>
- To: Marek Polacek <polacek at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Sandiford <richard dot sandiford at arm dot com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:58:59 +0200
- Subject: Re: PATCH to add more FALLTHRU markers
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160927164726.GG3223@redhat.com>
* Marek Polacek:
> @@ -11498,21 +11508,23 @@
> case V64QImode:
> case V32HImode:
> if (TARGET_AVX512F)
> - {
> - tmp = "p<logic>";
> - ssesuffix = "q";
> - break;
> - }
> + {
> + tmp = "p<logic>";
> + ssesuffix = "q";
> + break;
> + }
> + /* FALLTHRU */
> case V32QImode:
> case V16HImode:
> case V16QImode:
> case V8HImode:
> if (TARGET_AVX512VL || TARGET_AVX2 || TARGET_SSE2)
> - {
> - tmp = "p<logic>";
> - ssesuffix = TARGET_AVX512VL ? "q" : "";
> - break;
> - }
> + {
> + tmp = "p<logic>";
> + ssesuffix = TARGET_AVX512VL ? "q" : "";
> + break;
> + }
> + /* FALLTHRU */
> default:
> gcc_unreachable ();
> }
Why isn't this a bug? Wouldn't we want to reach gcc_unreachable ()
if, for example !TARGET_AVX512F and TARGET_SSE2?