Per discussion on cfe-dev, re-enable suppression of -Wimplicit-fallthrough on C, but also include dialects of C++ earlier than C++11.

There was enough consensus that we *can* get a good language solution
to have an annotation outside of C++11, and without this annotation
this warning doesn't quite mean's completeness criteria for this
kind of warning.  For now, restrict this warning to C++11 (where an
annotation exists), and make this the behavior for the LLVM 3.2 release.
Afterwards, we will hammer out a language solution that we are all
happy with.

git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@167749 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8

1 files changed, 12 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/lib/Sema/AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp b/lib/Sema/AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp
index a20817f965..801a1b1e02 100644
--- a/lib/Sema/AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp
+++ b/lib/Sema/AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp
@@ -818,6 +818,18 @@ namespace {
 
 static void DiagnoseSwitchLabelsFallthrough(Sema &S, AnalysisDeclContext &AC,
                                             bool PerFunction) {
+  // Only perform this analysis when using C++11.  There is no good workflow
+  // for this warning when not using C++11.  There is no good way to silence
+  // the warning (no attribute is available) unless we are using C++11's support
+  // for generalized attributes.  Once could use pragmas to silence the warning,
+  // but as a general solution that is gross and not in the spirit of this
+  // warning.
+  //
+  // NOTE: This an intermediate solution.  There are on-going discussions on
+  // how to properly support this warning outside of C++11 with an annotation.
+  if (!AC.getASTContext().getLangOpts().CPlusPlus0x)
+    return;
+
   FallthroughMapper FM(S);
   FM.TraverseStmt(AC.getBody());