From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 16:17:30 +0200
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] treewide: Lift switch
 variables out of switches
In-Reply-To: <20190123115829.GA31385@kroah.com>
References: <20190123110349.35882-1-keescook@chromium.org>
 <20190123110349.35882-2-keescook@chromium.org>
 <20190123115829.GA31385@kroah.com>
Message-ID: <874l9z31c5.fsf@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
List-ID: <intel-wired-lan.osuosl.org>

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 03:03:47AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>> Variables declared in a switch statement before any case statements
>> cannot be initialized, so move all instances out of the switches.
>> After this, future always-initialized stack variables will work
>> and not throw warnings like this:
>> 
>> fs/fcntl.c: In function ?send_sigio_to_task?:
>> fs/fcntl.c:738:13: warning: statement will never be executed [-Wswitch-unreachable]
>>    siginfo_t si;
>>              ^~
>
> That's a pain, so this means we can't have any new variables in { }
> scope except for at the top of a function?
>
> That's going to be a hard thing to keep from happening over time, as
> this is valid C :(

Not all valid C is meant to be used! ;)

Anyway, I think you're mistaking the limitation to arbitrary blocks
while it's only about the switch block IIUC.

Can't have:

	switch (i) {
		int j;
	case 0:
        	/* ... */
	}

because it can't be turned into:

	switch (i) {
		int j = 0; /* not valid C */
	case 0:
        	/* ... */
	}

but can have e.g.:

	switch (i) {
	case 0:
		{
			int j = 0;
	        	/* ... */
		}
	}

I think Kees' approach of moving such variable declarations to the
enclosing block scope is better than adding another nesting block.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center