Fix break in nested scope inside a switch case - #2490
Open
m910q wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
Collaborator
|
Can you provide some test methods that fail with the current implementation but pass with this fix? |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fix setting
allHadReturns = false;when abreak;appears in a nested scope.I'm not very familiar with how the compiler works, so it's an attempt that I hope can save you some time.
AI used to identify and make a bad fix
Human used to improve fix and do some manuel testing.
Fixes #2479
This PR does not fix how
break;seems to be treated differently thanreturn;when it comes to unreachable code within a single switch case. Compile time known branches works differently for instance:if (compTimeFalseValue) { return; }is ignored as a return, but abreak;is seen as a possibility, as far as I can tell.