From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 52361 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2016 03:13:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 52246 invoked by uid 89); 18 Aug 2016 03:12:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=sk:add_bui, Hx-languages-length:1202, richi X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 03:12:49 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3D7846211; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 03:12:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-116-111.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.111]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u7I3Cmii015312; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 23:12:48 -0400 Subject: Re: RFC: A few more fallthrus To: Marek Polacek , GCC Patches , Jason Merrill , Richard Biener References: <20160811144930.GV7007@redhat.com> <20160816165942.GH7007@redhat.com> From: Jeff Law Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 03:13:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160816165942.GH7007@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-08/txt/msg01296.txt.bz2 On 08/16/2016 10:59 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 04:49:30PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: >> A few more cases where I'm unsure whether the fall through is intended. >> Jason, can you please look at the cp/ part? > > Given Jason is on PTO this week, can I just commit the patch as-is, modulo > the already-committed tree-complex.c part? We can always revisit these few > cases later. It'd make my next patch submission more manageable. > >> Richi, would you mind looking at the tree-complex.c bit? >> What 'bout the pch.c? >> >> Thanks, >> >> 2016-08-11 Marek Polacek >> >> PR c/7652 >> gcc/ >> * tree-complex.c (expand_complex_division): Likewise. >> gcc/cp/ >> * call.c (add_builtin_candidate): Add gcc_fallthrough. >> * cxx-pretty-print.c (pp_cxx_unqualified_id): Likewise. >> * parser.c (cp_parser_skip_to_end_of_statement): Likewise. >> (cp_parser_cache_defarg): Likewise. >> libcpp/ >> * pch.c (write_macdef): Add CPP_FALLTHRU. They obviously don't change behavior, so they're safe in that sense. And you've got a marker so you can find them later or anyone else looking at the code knows we weren't sure on these. OK. jeff