[Bridge] [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
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 Bridge