Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Nov 2020 08:33:24 +1100 (AEDT) | From | Finn Thain <> | Subject | Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang |
| |
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.
| |