From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id C29293858C52; Tue,  8 Nov 2022 14:49:02 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C29293858C52
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1667918942;
	bh=1nWbTc7EVe37qH2h9H9S1gSMWQRAYPuHRAt8H+ix7CY=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:From;
	b=pE7W+Wn+aktCQZkUlnVRlg3rABcGG/XsODP3G/ta59ywdb/lCZgiz/+4C+6Kmiz8T
	 8NFIVC+wGklNsSkdrOJ3mqRCWTjWtuJ+DOhO8SPaRIPyeZylOm/YRkF/PjF4AXaoqM
	 6S/rj/jaUubnw3PTvgYdP69YoA9QIpwxEhi9bmyg=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/107571] New: Missing fallthrough attribute diagnostics
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2022 14:49:02 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status
 bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter target_milestone
Message-ID: <bug-107571-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107571

            Bug ID: 107571
           Summary: Missing fallthrough attribute diagnostics
           Product: gcc
           Version: 13.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

On:

void
foo (int n)
{
  void g(), h(), i();
  switch (n)
    {
    case 1:
    case 2:
      g();
      [[fallthrough]];
    case 3: // warning on fallthrough discouraged
      do {
        [[fallthrough]]; // error: next statement is not part of the same
substatement execution
      } while (false);
    case 6:
      do {
        [[fallthrough]]; // error: next statement is not part of the same
substatement execution
      } while (n--);
    case 7:
      while (false) {
        [[fallthrough]]; // error: next statement is not part of the same
substatement execution
      }
    case 5:
      h();
    case 4: // implementation may warn on fallthrough
      i();
      [[fallthrough]]; // error
    }
}

mentioned in https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D2552R1.pdf we don't diagnose
misplaced [[fallthrough]] in 2 spots.
The original dump shows:
  switch (n)
    {
      case 1:;
      case 2:;
      <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt
        g () >>>>>;
      <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt
        .FALLTHROUGH () >>>>>;
      case 3:;
      <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt
        .FALLTHROUGH () >>>>>;
      case 6:;
      <D.2778>:;
      <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt
        .FALLTHROUGH () >>>>>;
      if (<<cleanup_point n--  !=3D 0>>) goto <D.2778>; else goto <D.2776>;
      <D.2776>:;
      case 7:;
      goto <D.2779>;
      <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt
        .FALLTHROUGH () >>>>>;
      <D.2779>:;
      case 5:;
      <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt
        h () >>>>>;
      case 4:;
      <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt
        i () >>>>>;
      <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt
        .FALLTHROUGH () >>>>>;
    }
so the reason we don't warn in the do { ... } while (false); case is that it
disappears probably during
genericize_c_loop and the while (false) case because the genericization in =
that
case makes the loop body followed by artificial label.=