From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-364069-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20851 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2011 13:29:13 -0000
Received: (qmail 20839 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jul 2011 13:29:12 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:29:00 +0000
From: "daniel.marjamaki at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/7652] -Wswitch-break : Warn if a switch case falls through
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: daniel.marjamaki at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC
Message-ID: <bug-7652-4-ux4IkWwHKU@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-7652-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-7652-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:29:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-07/txt/msg02553.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D7652

Daniel Marjam=C3=A4ki <daniel.marjamaki at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |daniel.marjamaki at gmail
                   |                            |dot com

--- Comment #7 from Daniel Marjam=C3=A4ki <daniel.marjamaki at gmail dot co=
m> 2011-07-29 13:28:41 UTC ---
In my experience this type of check is really noisy if there is a warning f=
or
every fall through.

I recommend that the warning is written only if the fall through cause
redundant or bad behaviour. such as:

    switch (foo) {
    case 1: x =3D y;   // <- redundant assignment
    case 2: x =3D z;
    };

Or:

    switch (foo) {
    case 1: p =3D NULL;
    case 2: *p =3D 2;    // fall through =3D> NULL pointer dereference
    };