[cfe-dev] should -Wimplicit-fallthrough require C++11?

Nico Weber thakis at chromium.org
Sat Nov 10 10:41:16 PST 2012

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Ted Kremenek <kremenek at apple.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2012, at 7:04 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
> The original intention was that the warning could be used in any
> language mode, if you wanted a warning on *all* switch fallthrough,
> and that people who didn't want that could just not turn it on.
> Right.
> I
> guess the complaints you're receiving are for situations where the
> warning can't simply be disabled (or not enabled in the first place)?
> What has happened is that a fair number of users have discovered this
> warning using -Weverything.  When they first discover it they find it
> interesting.  After they discover that they cannot add an annotation (as the
> warning suggests) they get very frustrated.  They are then left with the
> choice of just turning the warning off, or using pragmas.  For those users
> who like the warning in principle, but find that they cannot use it in
> practice because of these limitations (because they are not using C++11)
> they view it is an incomplete feature.  Several people have thus requested
> to not see the warning at all.

If you're using -Weverything, shouldn't the expectation be that you'll
end up turning off several warnings?

> If we really can't find a better solution for these people than
> disabling the warning in languages where we can't annotate
> fallthrough, then we should do so consistently and disable it in C++98
> too.
> Agreed, but I like your suggestion of using something like a builtin.  Right
> now this warnings feels like an incomplete feature.  It has a really great
> workflow in C++11 with the use of the attribute.  Otherwise, unless the user
> wants a zero-tolerance policy with this warning, the workflow is not great.
> What I am afraid of is people turning this warning off (either directly or
> by never turning it on) when they may have found it useful.  Once they make
> that decision, it is unlikely they will give the warning a second try.
> You may have noticed that I reverted my change, pending further discussion
> here.  I still think we should consider what to do for the LLVM 3.2 branch,
> in case this doesn't get enough attention before then.  I myself won't have
> any cycles over the weekend to look at this.  A builtin, however, doesn't
> sound so hard to implement, but I'd prefer some way to sugar coat this to
> avoid the ugly syntax.
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list