[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YPHUJsiaOuqzW0Od@archlinux-ax161>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 11:47:02 -0700
From: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] fallthrough fixes for Clang for 5.14-rc2
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 06:04:15PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 1:03 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
> <gustavoars@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gustavoars/linux.git tags/Wimplicit-fallthrough-clang-5.14-rc2
>
> Grr.
>
> I merged this, but when I actually tested it on my clang build, it
> turns out that the clang "-Wimplicit-fallthrough" flag is unbelievable
> garbage.
>
> I get
>
> warning: fallthrough annotation in unreachable code [-Wimplicit-fallthrough]
>
> and the stupid warning doesn't even say WHERE THE PROBLEM HAPPENS.
>
> No file name, no line numbers. Just this pointless garbage warning.
>
> Honestly, how does a compiler even do something that broken? Am I
> supposed to use my sixth sense to guide me in finding the warning?
>
> I like the concept of the fallthrough warning, but it looks like the
> clang implementation of it is so unbelievably broken that it's getting
> disabled again.
>
> Yeah, I can
>
> (a) build the kernel without any parallelism
>
> (b) use ">&" to get both output and errors into the same file
>
> (c) see that it says
>
> CC kernel/sched/core.o
> warning: fallthrough annotation in unreachable code [-Wimplicit-fallthrough]
> 1 warning generated.
>
> and now I see at least which _file_ it is that causes that warning.
>
> I can then use my incredible powers of deduction (it's almost like a
> sixth sense, but helped by the fact that there's only one single
> "fallthrough" statement in that file) to figure out that it's
> triggered by this code:
>
> case cpuset:
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPUSETS)) {
> cpuset_cpus_allowed_fallback(p);
> state = possible;
> break;
> }
> fallthrough;
> case possible:
>
> and it all makes it clear that the clang warning is just incredibly
> broken garbage not only in that lack of filename and line number, but
> just in general.
I commented this on the LLVM bug tracker but I will copy and paste it
here for posterity:
"It is actually the fact that
case 1:
if (something || !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SOMETHING))
return blah;
fallthrough;
case 2:
looks like
case 1:
return blah;
fallthrough;
case 2:
For example: https://godbolt.org/z/GdPeMbdo8
int foo(int a) {
switch (a) {
case 0:
if (0)
return 0;
__attribute__((__fallthrough__)); // no warning
case 1:
if (1)
return 1;
__attribute__((__fallthrough__)); // warning
case 2:
return 3;
default:
return 4;
}
}
I am not really sure how to resolve that within checkFallThroughIntoBlock() or
fillReachableBlocks() but given that this is something specific to the kernel,
we could introduce -Wimplicit-fallthrough-unreachable then disable it within
the kernel.
The file location not showing up was fixed by commit 1b4800c26259
("[clang][parser] Set source ranges for GNU-style attributes"). The
differential revision mentions this issue specifically."
Hopefully that would be an adequate solution, otherwise someone with more clang
internal will have to take a look.
Cheers,
Nathan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists