[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190625071528.GM3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:15:28 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
Shawn Landden <shawn@....icu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 03:53:04PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Once the C++17 `__attribute__((fallthrough))` is more widely handled by C compilers,
>From what I read that attribute landed in the exact same GCC version as
the warning. And last I checked clang wasn't there yet anyway.
> static analyzers, and IDEs, we can switch to using that instead. Also, we are a few
I don't give a crap about lousy IDEs. And coverity already supports the
attribute and other checkers are open-source and can be easily fixed or
ignored.
> warnings away (less than five) from being able to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough. After
> this option has been finally enabled (in v5.3) we can easily go and replace the comments
> to whatever we agree upon.
Feh. Still an abomination.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists