[Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
Finn Thain
fthain at telegraphics.com.au
Wed Nov 25 21:33:24 UTC 2020
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> So developers and distributions using Clang can't have
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough enabled because GCC is less strict (which has
> been shown in this thread to lead to bugs)? We'd like to have nice
> things too, you know.
>
Apparently the GCC developers don't want you to have "nice things" either.
Do you think that the kernel should drop gcc in favour of clang?
Or do you think that a codebase can somehow satisfy multiple checkers and
their divergent interpretations of the language spec?
> This is not a shiny new warning; it's already on for GCC and has existed
> in both compilers for multiple releases.
>
Perhaps you're referring to the compiler feature that lead to the
ill-fated, tree-wide /* fallthrough */ patch series.
When the ink dries on the C23 language spec and the implementations figure
out how to interpret it then sure, enforce the warning for new code -- the
cost/benefit analysis is straight forward. However, the case for patching
existing mature code is another story.
More information about the Intel-wired-lan
mailing list