JonasToth added a comment. I think the check is ready to land. I did check run it over LLVM and found some interesting code parts that could benefit. I extracted all the warnings and sorted them into the categories `missing default/covered codepath(uncovered.txt)`, `better use if/else(better_if.txt)` and `use if(mandatory_if.txt)`. Some warnings come from generated files but some live in usercode. In total there are 540 warnings.
Please note, that i identified a common pattern to leave out the `default` label and add an ending `llvm_unreachable` that is outside the switch but ensures there is no unwanted fall_through. Most of the warnings for the first category are like this, but i could not check all of them! F5899267: uncovered.txt <https://reviews.llvm.org/F5899267> F5899266: better_if.txt <https://reviews.llvm.org/F5899266> F5899265: mandatory_if.txt <https://reviews.llvm.org/F5899265> Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D40737 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
