lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:53:44 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <>
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <>
        Nick Desaulniers <>,
        Nathan Chancellor <>,
        Miguel Ojeda <>, Joe Perches <>,
        Kees Cook <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, explicitly
> add multiple break/goto/return/fallthrough statements instead of just
> letting the code fall through to the next case.
> Notice that in order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, this
> change[1] is meant to be reverted at some point. So, this patch helps
> to move in that direction.
> Something important to mention is that there is currently a discrepancy
> between GCC and Clang when dealing with switch fall-through to empty case
> statements or to cases that only contain a break/continue/return
> statement[2][3][4].

Are we sure we want to make this change? Was it discussed before?

Are there any bugs Clangs puritanical definition of fallthrough helped

IMVHO compiler warnings are supposed to warn about issues that could
be bugs. Falling through to default: break; can hardly be a bug?!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists