Message-ID: <CAKwvOdmPj_mm+9t1i=yLhvO0FAe6Kd7ezjOoTnp1fzcoikPHpw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Oct 2018 10:36:21 -0700
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, dan.carpenter@...cle.com,
        adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        mchehab+samsung@...nel.org, olof@...m.net,
        Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Paul Lawrence <paullawrence@...gle.com>,
        sandipan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        paul.burton@...s.com, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, msebor@...il.com, sparse@...isli.org,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, joe@...ches.com,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, asmadeus@...ewreck.org,
        Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Compiler Attributes: add support for __fallthrough
 (gcc >= 7.1)

On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 10:14 AM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
>
> From the GCC manual:
>
>   fallthrough
>
>     The fallthrough attribute with a null statement serves as a
>     fallthrough statement. It hints to the compiler that a statement
>     that falls through to another case label, or user-defined label
>     in a switch statement is intentional and thus the -Wimplicit-fallthrough
>     warning must not trigger. The fallthrough attribute may appear
>     at most once in each attribute list, and may not be mixed with
>     other attributes. It can only be used in a switch statement
>     (the compiler will issue an error otherwise), after a preceding
>     statement and before a logically succeeding case label,
>     or user-defined label.
>
>   https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Statement-Attributes.html
>
> Currently, most of the kernel uses fallthrough comments to silence
> the -Wimplicit-fallthrough warnings (enabled by -Wextra, in W=1).
> However, C++17 standarized an "statement attribute" (the first

s/standarized/standardized/

> of its kind) to deal with this: [[fallthrough]] is meant to be
> a new control keyword in the form of an extension.

I think we can leave the details about the [[]] notation out. IIUC,
it's only applicable to C++.

>
> In C mode, GCC supports the __fallthrough__ attribute since 7.1,
> the same time the warning and the comment parsing were introduced.
>
> While comment parsing is a good idea to deal with old codebases
> that used such a comment as documentation for humans, the best
> solution is to use the attribute:
>
>   * It is a "real" part of the AST (=> better for tooling).

+1

>
>   * It does not follow arbitrary rules for parsing (e.g. regexps
>     for the comment parsing).

+2

>
>   * It may even become standarized in C as well: there are ongoing

s/standarized/standardized/

>     proposals to import some C++ standard attributes into
>     the C standard, e.g. for fallthrough:
>
>       http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2268.pdf
>
> On top of that, it is also a better solution for the kernel, because:
>
>   * We can actually use a #define for it like for the rest of
>     attributes/extensions, which is not possible with a comment,
>     so that its naming/usage is consistent across the entire kernel.

+3

>
>   * Whenever the migration from the comments to the attribute
>     is complete, we may increase the level of the GCC warning up to 5,
>     i.e. comments will not longer be considered for warning
>     surpression:  only the attribute must be used. This would enforce

s/surpression/suppression/

>     consistency by leveraging the compiler directly (instead of
>     enforcing it with other tools).
>
>   * Further into the future, we can consider moving the warning
>     up to W=0 or even making it an error.
>
> It is worth noting that clang >= 3.2 supports the warning and
> the attribute, but only in C++ mode (and it is not enabled by
> -Wall/-Wextra/-Wpedantic like in gcc). Hopefully, they will also
> support it for C as well.

https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39382

>
> Further, icc >= 18 does not seem to know anything about the warning;
> except that it accepts (i.e. ignores) [[fallthrough]] in C++17 mode
> (to be conformant, probably).
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181017062255.oiu44y4zuuwilan3@mwanda/
> Suggested-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/compiler_attributes.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/compiler_attributes.h b/include/linux/compiler_attributes.h
> index 6b28c1b7310c..9e2153f85462 100644
> --- a/include/linux/compiler_attributes.h
> +++ b/include/linux/compiler_attributes.h
> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
>  # define __GCC4_has_attribute___assume_aligned__      (__GNUC_MINOR__ >= 9)
>  # define __GCC4_has_attribute___designated_init__     0
>  # define __GCC4_has_attribute___externally_visible__  1
> +# define __GCC4_has_attribute___fallthrough__         0
>  # define __GCC4_has_attribute___noclone__             1
>  # define __GCC4_has_attribute___optimize__            1
>  # define __GCC4_has_attribute___nonstring__           0
> @@ -133,6 +134,23 @@
>  # define __visible
>  #endif
>
> +/*
> + * Currently, most of the kernel uses fallthrough comments to silence
> + * the -Wimplicit-fallthrough warnings (enabled by -Wextra, in W=1).
> + * For new instances, please use this attribute instead.
> + *
> + * Optional: only supported since gcc >= 7.1
> + * Optional: not supported by clang
> + * Optional: not supported by icc
> + *
> + *   gcc: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Statement-Attributes.html#index-fallthrough-statement-attribute
> + */
> +#if __has_attribute(__fallthrough__)
> +# define __fallthrough                  __attribute__((__fallthrough__))
> +#else
> +# define __fallthrough

While this is in the correct format as the other attributes in this
file, I think this particular attribute is a special case, because of
the variety of fallbacks and differing support for them.  I'd like to
see in the commit message maybe a list of tools we'd like to support
and links to the feature requests/bug reports for them.  I acknowledge
it's more work to file bugs, but it's being a good open source
citizen, IMO.

I'm also curious which is the first version of GCC to support the
comment format?

> +#endif
> +
>  /*
>   *   gcc: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html#index-format-function-attribute
>   * clang: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#format
> --
> 2.17.1
>


-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers

Powered by blists - more mailing lists