Implement -Wimplicit-fallthrough (version 9)

Eric Botcazou
Sun Oct 9 09:43:00 GMT 2016

> I really really don't see why anyone would think that those '...' bring
> any additional information.  Since Rainer has changed this, I see zero
> point in changing it back.

Yet doing it revealed an oversight in the first patch...

> It wasn't overlooked, there was a bug that I've fixed already which caused
> missing warnings.

Nope, see this hunk in the first patch:

@@ -4271,6 +4271,8 @@ convert (tree type, tree expr)
          return expr;
+      /* fall through */
     case CONSTRUCTOR:
       /* If we are converting a CONSTRUCTOR to a mere type variant, or to
         another padding type around the same type, just make a new one in

It's plain wrong, it should have been a break instead, but this was overlooked 
by everyone because of the bunch of false positives.

Eric Botcazou

More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list