Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:24 PM Finn Thain <fthain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> These statements are not "missing" unless you presume that code written
> before the latest de facto language spec was written should somehow be
> held to that spec.

There is no "language spec" the kernel adheres to. Even if it did,
kernel code is not frozen. If an improvement is found, it should be

> If the 'fallthrough' statement is not part of the latest draft spec then
> we should ask why not before we embrace it. Being that the kernel still
> prefers -std=gnu89 you might want to consider what has prevented
> -std=gnu99 or -std=gnu2x etc.

The C standard has nothing to do with this. We use compiler extensions
of several kinds, for many years. Even discounting those extensions,
the kernel is not even conforming to C due to e.g. strict aliasing. I
am not sure what you are trying to argue here.

But, since you insist: yes, the `fallthrough` attribute is in the
current C2x draft.


[Index of Archives]     [Linux File System Development]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Ext4 Filesystem]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux