[cfe-commits] r148679 - in /cfe/trunk: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td lib/Sema/SemaStmt.cpp test/Sema/switch-enum.c

[Richard Smith]

On Mon, January 23, 2012 04:46, David Blaikie wrote:
> Author: dblaikie
> Date: Sun Jan 22 22:46:12 2012
> New Revision: 148679
>
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=148679&view=rev
> Log:
> Implement -Wswitch-enum correctly.
>
>
> Clang previously implemented -Wswitch-enum the same as -Wswitch. This patch
> corrects the behavior to match GCC's. The critical/only difference being that
> -Wswitch-enum is not silenced by the presence of a default case in the
> switch.
>
> Added:
> cfe/trunk/test/Sema/switch-enum.c Modified:
> cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td
> cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaStmt.cpp
>
> Modified: cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td
> URL:
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticS
> emaKinds.td?rev=148679&r1=148678&r2=148679&view=diff
> =============================================================================
> =
> --- cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td (original)
> +++ cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td Sun Jan 22 22:46:12
> 2012
> @@ -4945,6 +4945,20 @@
> def warn_case_empty_range : Warning<"empty case range specified">; def
> warn_missing_case_for_condition : Warning<"no case matching constant switch
> condition '%0'">; +
> +def warn_def_missing_case1 : Warning<
> +  "enumeration value %0 not handled in switch">,
> +  InGroup<SwitchEnum>, DefaultIgnore;
> +def warn_def_missing_case2 : Warning<
> +  "enumeration values %0 and %1 not handled in switch">,
> +  InGroup<SwitchEnum>, DefaultIgnore;
> +def warn_def_missing_case3 : Warning<
> +  "enumeration values %0, %1, and %2 not handled in switch">,
> +  InGroup<SwitchEnum>, DefaultIgnore;
> +def warn_def_missing_cases : Warning<
> +  "%0 enumeration values not handled in switch: %1, %2, %3...">,
> +  InGroup<SwitchEnum>, DefaultIgnore;

This diagnostic text isn't technically correct. What do you think about
'enumeration value[...] not explicitly handled in switch'?

- Richard