[cfe-dev] [cfe-commits] False positive for -Wunreachable-code

[Ted Kremenek]

On Oct 30, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote:

> 3) If there is no code after an enum-covered switch with no default,
> or the next statement can be reached by a different path, we should
> make a conservative assumption (that it cannot happen for cases where
> it happening would trigger a warning, and that it can happen in cases
> where it not happening would trigger a warning).

I think I understand what you mean, but that's a bit of a run on sentence.  The multiple "it happening" and "it not happening" is confusing.  Can you be a bit more clear?  Since this may not be fixed immediately it would be good to establish some clarity here.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20121030/29eb1717/attachment.html>