On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:47:27AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/04/2016 06:36 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Jul 2016, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >
> > > And this is the rest. Either I just adjusted a falls through comment,
> > > or I added __builtin_fallthrough (). These were the cases where I was
> > > fairly sure that the fall through is intentional.
> >
> > I saw one case where I think the warning is a bit over-active:
> >
> > @@ -42072,6 +42089,7 @@ rdseed_step:
> > case IX86_BUILTIN_ADDCARRYX64:
> > icode = CODE_FOR_addcarrydi;
> > mode0 = DImode;
> > + gcc_fallthrough ();
> >
> > handlecarry:
> > arg0 = CALL_EXPR_ARG (exp, 0); /* unsigned char c_in. */
> >
> > I.e. it also warns if the following label is not a case label but a normal
> > one. I don't think this counts as a classical fall-through and it IMHO
> > should not be warned about nor should it be marked.
Ok, I'll buy that.
> It's probably the same underlying issue I saw with a false-positive in one
> of the other patches.
Yes. I'll adjust the warning to not warn for non-case labels.
Thanks,
Marek
