Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Nov 2017 19:17:37 +0100 (CET) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs |
| |
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > Quoting Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>: > > > > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > > > > > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases > > > > where we are expecting to fall through. > > > > > > > case 0: > > > > if (!n--) break; > > > > *args++ = regs->bx; > > > > + /* fall through */ > > > > > > And these gazillions of pointless comments help enabling of > > > -Wimplicit-fallthrough in which way? > > > > > > > The -Wimplicit-fallthrough option was added to GCC 7. We want to add that > > option to the top-level Makefile so we can have the compiler help us not make > > mistakes as missing "break"s or "continue"s. This also documents the intention > > for humans and provides a way for analyzers to report issues or ignore False > > Positives. > > > > So prior to adding such option to the Makefile, we have to properly add a code > > comment wherever the code is intended to fall through. > > > > During the process of placing these comments I have identified actual bugs > > (missing "break"s/"continue"s) in a variety of components in the kernel, so I > > think this effort is valuable. Lastly, such a simple comment in the code can > > save a person plenty of time during a code review. > > To be honest, such comments annoy me during a code review especially when > the fallthrough is so obvious as in this case. There might be cases where > its worth to document because it's non obvious, but documenting the obvious > just for the sake of documenting it is just wrong.
And _IF_ at all then you want a fixed macro for this and not a comment which will be formatted as people see it fit.
GCC supports: __attribute__ ((fallthrough)) which we can wrap into a macro, e.g. falltrough()
That'd be useful, but adding all these comments and then having to chase a gazillion of warning instances to figure out whether there is a comment or not is just backwards.
Sure, but slapping a comment everywhere is just simpler than reading the documentation and make something useful and understandable.
Thanks,
tglx
| |