On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 09:32 -0400, Eric Gallager wrote: > On 8/29/16, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Tobias tried my latest version and reported some ICEs. They should > > all be > > fixed in this version (the only change since version 6 is the > > cp/pt.c > > hunk). > > > > At this point I'd like to ask Jason and Joseph to review the C/C++ > > parts > > and someone to review the ME parts so that I can finally wrap this > > thing > > up. This warning found a couple of bugs in our codebase and I > > suspect it > > will find some in other codebases, too. > > > > Does anyone have any concerns that I haven't addressed yet? > > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and ppc64-linux, ok for > > trunk? > > > > > I tried v6 on my binutils-gdb fork, and it printed A LOT of > warnings... After this patch goes in, the main question I'd have > would > be about the carets: it seems like it would make more sense for me > for > the location of the warning to be swapped with that of the fixit > hint(s)? With the fixit pointing to the case label before the > statement that's warned about, it makes it look like it's suggesting > to put the fallthrough attribute or the break before the rest of the > content of the case, which, with the break, could lead to dead code. > I'd think it'd make more sense to point to after the body of the case > statement instead...
Interesting. Please can you post an example of the output that you're referring to? I'm working on improvements to how we print fix-its, so I'm wondering if this is an issue with the fix-it data, or with the presentation of it. Thanks Dave
