[cfe-commits] [PATCH] Minor improvement for -Wimplicit-fallthrough

[Chandler Carruth]

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>wrote:

> Hi cfe-commits,
>
> This patch handles a specific (but surprisingly common) case when a
> fall-through occurs to a switch label immediately followed by a break;.
> In this case it doesn't make sense to suggest a fall-through annotation,
> almost certainly inserting break; is a good fix-it.
> Example:
>
> switch (x) {
>   case 111:
>     f();
>   case 222: // don't offer "[[clang::fallthrough]];", just "break;"
>     break;
> }
>
> Please, review this patch.
>

Seems generally good. I think we have 'isa_or_null' which would simplify
the code implementing it a bit i think? Maybe I've mis-remembered.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20120525/97fcbd63/attachment.html>