From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Finn Thain Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 10:53:13 +1100 (AEDT) Subject: [Cluster-devel] [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang In-Reply-To: References: <202011201129.B13FDB3C@keescook> <20201120115142.292999b2@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <202011220816.8B6591A@keescook> <9b57fd4914b46f38d54087d75e072d6e947cb56d.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <0147972a72bc13f3629de8a32dee6f1f308994b5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20201123130348.GA3119@embeddedor> <8f5611bb015e044fa1c0a48147293923c2d904e4.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <202011241327.BB28F12F6@keescook> Message-ID: List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 25 Nov 2020, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > 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. > I'm saying that supporting the official language spec makes more sense than attempting to support a multitude of divergent interpretations of the spec (i.e. gcc, clang, coverity etc.) I'm also saying that the reason why we use -std=gnu89 is that existing code was written in that language, not in ad hoc languages comprised of collections of extensions that change with every release. > But, since you insist: yes, the `fallthrough` attribute is in the > current C2x draft. > Thank you for checking. I found a free version that's only 6 weeks old: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2583.pdf It will be interesting to see whether 6.7.11.5 changes once the various implementations reach agreement.