lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 05:32:51PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 8:17 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > If none of the 140 patches here fix a real bug, and there is no change
> > > to machine code then it sounds to me like a W=2 kind of a warning.
> >
> > FWIW, this series has found at least one bug so far:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAFCwf11izHF=g1mGry1fE5kvFFFrxzhPSM6qKAO8gxSp=Kr_CQ@mail.gmail.com/
>
> So looks like the bulk of these are:
> switch (x) {
> case 0:
> ++x;
> default:
> break;
> }

This should not generate a warning.

>
> I have a patch that fixes those up for clang:
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D91895
>
> There's 3 other cases that don't quite match between GCC and Clang I
> observe in the kernel:
> switch (x) {
> case 0:
> ++x;
> default:
> goto y;
> }
> y:;

This should generate a warning.

>
> switch (x) {
> case 0:
> ++x;
> default:
> return;
> }

Warn for this.


>
> switch (x) {
> case 0:
> ++x;
> default:
> ;
> }

Don't warn for this.

If adding a break statement changes the flow of the code then warn about
potentially missing break statements, but if it doesn't change anything
then don't warn about it.

regards,
dan carpenter

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-12-01 15:14    [W:0.341 / U:2.848 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site