On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 8:24 AM Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
> Applying a real patch set and then getting a few follow ups the next day
> for trivial coding things like fallthrough missing or static missing,
> just because I didn't have the full range of compilers to check with
> before applying makes
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 1:33 PM Finn Thain wrote:
>
> Or do you think that a codebase can somehow satisfy multiple checkers and
> their divergent interpretations of the language spec?
Have we found any cases yet that are divergent? I don't think so. It
sounds to me like GCC's cases it warns for
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:05:35PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> Now, what we have seems to be about 6 cases (at least what's been shown
> in this thread) where a missing break would cause potentially user
> visible issues. That means the value of this isn't zero, but it's not
> a no-brainer mas
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 5:24 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
> And just to spell it out,
>
> case ENUM_VALUE1:
> bla();
> break;
> case ENUM_VALUE2:
> bla();
> default:
> break;
>
> is a fairly idiomatic way of indicating that not all values of the enum
> are expected to
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:05 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 13:32 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > We already enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough globally, so that's not the
> > discussion. The issue is that Clang is (correctly) even more strict
> > than GCC for this, so these are the r
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 12:53 AM Finn Thain wrote:
>
> I'm saying that supporting the official language spec makes more sense
> than attempting to support a multitude of divergent interpretations of the
> spec (i.e. gcc, clang, coverity etc.)
Making the kernel strictly conforming is a ship that s
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:24 PM Finn Thain wrote:
>
> These statements are not "missing" unless you presume that code written
> before the latest de facto language spec was written should somehow be
> held to that spec.
There is no "language spec" the kernel adheres to. Even if it did,
kernel co
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 08:31:30AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> Really, no ... something which produces no improvement has no value at
> all ... we really shouldn't be wasting maintainer time with it because
> it has a cost to merge. I'm not sure we understand where the balance
> lies in value
