Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev
2018-Nov-01 17:25 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC Enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for clang as well as GCC
Great! Thanks everyone for the input, I'm going to start splitting up the patch. I'll send out the non-mechanical parts separately. On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:03 PM Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote:> On Oct 31, 2018, at 2:24 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > Alex Kornienko proposed enabling this warning back in 2012 here: > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2012-July/051386.html > > At the time, Chris Lattner said he didn't feel it was worth annotating > all of LLVM and Clang with a new macro to enable this warning. > > > FWIW, I formally withdraw my objection, go for it! :-) > > -Chris > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20181101/670daf50/attachment.html>
Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev
2018-Nov-01 20:34 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC Enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for clang as well as GCC
I split all the possible behavior changes out of the big cleanup patch, and committed the cleanup as r345882. I enabled the warning in r345887, and I'll see if it sticks. Thanks for the reviews! On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:25 AM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:> Great! Thanks everyone for the input, I'm going to start splitting up the > patch. I'll send out the non-mechanical parts separately. > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:03 PM Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > >> On Oct 31, 2018, at 2:24 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >> >> Alex Kornienko proposed enabling this warning back in 2012 here: >> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2012-July/051386.html >> >> At the time, Chris Lattner said he didn't feel it was worth annotating >> all of LLVM and Clang with a new macro to enable this warning. >> >> >> FWIW, I formally withdraw my objection, go for it! :-) >> >> -Chris >> >>-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20181101/365ca316/attachment.html>
Mikael Holmén via llvm-dev
2018-Nov-07 13:26 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC Enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for clang as well as GCC
Hi, Does this mean that the clang version mentioned on https://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#host-c-toolchain-both-compiler-and-standard-library should be updated since it currently says that 3.1 is ok? I noticed that one of our build-bots that ran clang 3.5.0 failed since it ended up in the #define LLVM_FALLTHROUGH part of the ifdefs in include/llvm/Demangle/Compiler.h #if __cplusplus > 201402L && __has_cpp_attribute(fallthrough) #define LLVM_FALLTHROUGH [[fallthrough]] #elif __has_cpp_attribute(gnu::fallthrough) #define LLVM_FALLTHROUGH [[gnu::fallthrough]] #elif !__cplusplus // Workaround for llvm.org/PR23435, since clang 3.6 and below emit a spurious // error when __has_cpp_attribute is given a scoped attribute in C mode. #define LLVM_FALLTHROUGH #elif __has_cpp_attribute(clang::fallthrough) #define LLVM_FALLTHROUGH [[clang::fallthrough]] #else #define LLVM_FALLTHROUGH #endif and then we of course got tons of fallthrough warnings/errors (with -Werror). Now we've updated the clang version on that build bot too, so it's no problem for us, but perhaps someone else will hit the same thing. /Mikael On 11/1/18 9:34 PM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev wrote:> I split all the possible behavior changes out of the big cleanup patch, > and committed the cleanup as r345882. > > I enabled the warning in r345887, and I'll see if it sticks. > > Thanks for the reviews! > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:25 AM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com > <mailto:rnk at google.com>> wrote: > > Great! Thanks everyone for the input, I'm going to start splitting > up the patch. I'll send out the non-mechanical parts separately. > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:03 PM Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org > <mailto:sabre at nondot.org>> wrote: > > On Oct 31, 2018, at 2:24 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com > <mailto:rnk at google.com>> wrote: >> Alex Kornienko proposed enabling this warning back in 2012 here: >> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2012-July/051386.html >> >> At the time, Chris Lattner said he didn't feel it was worth >> annotating >> all of LLVM and Clang with a new macro to enable this warning. > > FWIW, I formally withdraw my objection, go for it! :-) > > -Chris > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >
Seemingly Similar Threads
- [LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: LLVM_FALLTHROUGH macro for intended fall-throughs between switch cases
- Excessive use of LLVM_FALLTHROUGH?
- [LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] PROPOSAL: LLVM_FALLTHROUGH macro for intended fall-throughs between switch cases
- [LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] PROPOSAL: LLVM_FALLTHROUGH macro for intended fall-throughs between switch cases
- [LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] PROPOSAL: LLVM_FALLTHROUGH macro for intended fall-throughs between switch cases