[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72=Ybm2MHmOizo1xQ_QYGuvbthtnLbwCkr8AFb8PcfmuQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 00:46:23 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
cluster-devel@...hat.com, coreteam@...filter.org,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
GR-everest-linux-l2@...vell.com, GR-Linux-NIC-Dev@...vell.com,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-atm-general@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-decnet-user@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-geode@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-hams@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, linux-i3c@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-input <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org,
op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org, oss-drivers@...ronome.com,
patches@...nsource.cirrus.com, rds-devel@....oracle.com,
reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org, samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
selinux@...r.kernel.org, target-devel@...r.kernel.org,
tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
usb-storage@...ts.one-eyed-alien.net,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
wcn36xx@...ts.infradead.org,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 AM Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au> wrote:
>
> What I meant was that you've used pessimism as if it was fact.
"future mistakes that it might prevent" is neither pessimism nor states a fact.
> For example, "There is no way to guess what the effect would be if the
> compiler trained programmers to add a knee-jerk 'break' statement to avoid
> a warning".
It is only knee-jerk if you think you are infallible.
> Moreover, what I meant was that preventing programmer mistakes is a
> problem to be solved by development tools
This warning comes from a development tool -- the compiler.
> The idea that retro-fitting new
> language constructs onto mature code is somehow necessary to "prevent
> future mistakes" is entirely questionable.
The kernel is not a frozen codebase.
Further, "mature code vs. risk of change" arguments don't apply here
because the semantics of the program and binary output isn't changing.
> Sure. And if you put -Wimplicit-fallthrough into the Makefile and if that
> leads to well-intentioned patches that cause regressions, it is partly on
> you.
Again: adding a `fallthrough` does not change the program semantics.
If you are a maintainer and want to cross-check, compare the codegen.
> Have you ever considered the overall cost of the countless
> -Wpresume-incompetence flags?
Yeah: negative. On the other hand, the overall cost of the countless
-fI-am-infallible flags is very noticeable.
> Perhaps you pay the power bill for a build farm that produces logs that
> no-one reads? Perhaps you've run git bisect, knowing that the compiler
> messages are not interesting? Or compiled software in using a language
> that generates impenetrable messages? If so, here's a tip:
>
> # grep CFLAGS /etc/portage/make.conf
> CFLAGS="... -Wno-all -Wno-extra ..."
> CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"
>
> Now allow me some pessimism: the hardware upgrades, gigawatt hours and
> wait time attributable to obligatory static analyses are a net loss.
If you really believe compiler warnings and static analysis are
useless and costly, I think there is not much point in continuing the
discussion.
> No, it's not for me to prove that such patches don't affect code
> generation. That's for the patch author and (unfortunately) for reviewers.
I was not asking you to prove it. I am stating that proving it is very easy.
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists