Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Mar 2019 23:24:05 +0300 | From | Alexey Dobriyan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Drop -Wdeclaration-after-statement |
| |
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:50:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 20:24:47 +0300 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 05:38:45PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 16:35:35 +0300 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Newly added static_assert() is formally a declaration, which will give > > > > a warning if used in the middle of the function. > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > --- a/Makefile > > > > +++ b/Makefile > > > > @@ -792,9 +792,6 @@ endif > > > > # arch Makefile may override CC so keep this after arch Makefile is included > > > > NOSTDINC_FLAGS += -nostdinc -isystem $(shell $(CC) -print-file-name=include) > > > > > > > > -# warn about C99 declaration after statement > > > > -KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wdeclaration-after-statement > > > > - > > > > # Variable Length Arrays (VLAs) should not be used anywhere in the kernel > > > > KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Wvla) > > > > > > I do wish your changelogs were more elaborate :( > > > > > So the proposal is to disable -Wdeclaration-after-statement in all > > > cases for all time because static_assert() doesn't work correctly? > > > > Yes. I converted 2 cases in /proc to static_assert() and you can't write > > > > { > > [code] > > static_assert() > > } > > > > without a warning because static_assert() is declaration. > > So people would move BUILD_BUG_ON() to where it doesn't belong. > > Sure. > > > > Surely there's something we can do to squish the static_assert() issue > > > while retaining -Wdeclaration-after-statement? > > > > It is not good in my opinion to stick to -Wdeclaration-after-statement. > > Why? > > > > Perhaps by making > > > static_assert() a nop if -Wdeclaration-after-statement is in use. > > > Perhaps simply by putting { } around the static_assert()? > > > > Making a statement out of it would disable current cases where it is > > placed in headers. > > I think you mean cases where static_assert() is used outside functions? > > We could have two versions of it, one for use inside functions, one for > use outside functions?
I don't know. It was made a declaration in the standard specifically to have only one name which is a good thing.
Just count the number of BUILD_BUG_* variants, it is ridiculous for such a simple thing. Or even better, all *alloc* variants. :^)
| |