From b890e9fc6612f67932092c02e850701963a2d27c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Blaikie Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 18:03:02 +0000 Subject: Add missing 'to' and rephrase an explanation of GCC's assumptions. Wordsmithing by Matt Beaumont-Gay in response to r164389. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164395 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8 --- docs/CodingStandards.rst | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) (limited to 'docs/CodingStandards.rst') diff --git a/docs/CodingStandards.rst b/docs/CodingStandards.rst index ecd5626..455ffd5 100644 --- a/docs/CodingStandards.rst +++ b/docs/CodingStandards.rst @@ -830,11 +830,11 @@ off by default but turned on when building LLVM with a version of Clang that supports the warning. A knock-on effect of this stylistic requirement is that when building LLVM with -GCC you may get warnings related "control may reach end of non-void function" +GCC you may get warnings related to "control may reach end of non-void function" if you return from each case of a covered switch-over-enum because GCC assumes -that the enum expression may take any representable value, not just those in -the enumeration. To suppress this warning, use ``llvm_unreachable`` after the -switch. +that the enum expression may take any representable value, not just those of +individual enumerators. To suppress this warning, use ``llvm_unreachable`` after +the switch. Use ``LLVM_DELETED_FUNCTION`` to mark uncallable methods ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -- cgit v1.1