Re: [PATCH] Drop -Wdeclaration-after-statement

[Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:50:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 20:24:47 +0300 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 05:38:45PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 16:35:35 +0300 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Newly added static_assert() is formally a declaration, which will give
> > > > a warning if used in the middle of the function.
> > > > 
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > --- a/Makefile
> > > > +++ b/Makefile
> > > > @@ -792,9 +792,6 @@ endif
> > > >  # arch Makefile may override CC so keep this after arch Makefile is included
> > > >  NOSTDINC_FLAGS += -nostdinc -isystem $(shell $(CC) -print-file-name=include)
> > > >  
> > > > -# warn about C99 declaration after statement
> > > > -KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wdeclaration-after-statement
> > > > -
> > > >  # Variable Length Arrays (VLAs) should not be used anywhere in the kernel
> > > >  KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Wvla)
> > > 
> > > I do wish your changelogs were more elaborate :(
> > 
> > > So the proposal is to disable -Wdeclaration-after-statement in all
> > > cases for all time because static_assert() doesn't work correctly?
> > 
> > Yes. I converted 2 cases in /proc to static_assert() and you can't write
> > 
> > 	{
> > 		[code]
> > 		static_assert()
> > 	}
> > 
> > without a warning because static_assert() is declaration.
> > So people would move BUILD_BUG_ON() to where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> > > Surely there's something we can do to squish the static_assert() issue
> > > while retaining -Wdeclaration-after-statement?
> > 
> > It is not good in my opinion to stick to -Wdeclaration-after-statement.
> 
> Why?
> 
> > > Perhaps by making
> > > static_assert() a nop if -Wdeclaration-after-statement is in use. 
> > > Perhaps simply by putting { } around the static_assert()?
> > 
> > Making a statement out of it would disable current cases where it is
> > placed in headers.
> 
> I think you mean cases where static_assert() is used outside functions?
> 
> We could have two versions of it, one for use inside functions, one for
> use outside functions?

I don't know. It was made a declaration in the standard specifically
to have only one name which is a good thing.

Just count the number of BUILD_BUG_* variants, it is ridiculous for such
a simple thing. Or even better, all *alloc* variants. :^)