LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nathan Chancellor <email@example.com>
To: Kees Cook <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <email@example.com>,
Philip Li <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Masahiro Yamada <email@example.com>,
Linus Torvalds <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <email@example.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <email@example.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for clang 14.0.0+
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 16:23:41 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw)
On 8/17/2021 4:06 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 04:33:25PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> On 8/17/21 16:17, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 3:25 AM Nathan Chancellor <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> On 8/17/2021 11:03 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 09:55:28PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
>>>>>> If you/Gustavo would prefer, I can upgrade that check to
>>>>>> ifneq ($(call cc-option, -Wunreachable-code-fallthrough),)
>>>>>> I was just trying to save a call to the compiler, as that is more expensive
>>>>>> than a shell test call.
>>>>> I prefer the option test -- this means no changes are needed on the
>>>>> kernel build side if it ever finds itself backported to earlier versions
>>>>> (and it handles the current case of "14" not meaning "absolute latest").
>>>>> More specifically, I think you want this (untested):
>>>> That should work but since -Wunreachable-code-fallthrough is off by
>>>> default, I did not really see a reason to include it in KBUILD_CFLAGS. I
>>>> do not have a strong opinion though, your version is smaller than mine
>>>> is so we can just go with that. I'll defer to Gustavo on it since he has
>>>> put in all of the work cleaning up the warnings.
>>> did two things:
>>> (1) Change the -Wimplicit-fallthrough behavior so that it fits
>>> to our use in the kernel
>>> (2) Add a new option -Wunreachable-code-fallthrough
>>> that works like the previous -Wimplicit-fallthrough of
>>> Clang <= 13.0.0
>>> They are separate things.
>>> Checking the presence of -Wunreachable-code-fallthrough
>>> does not make sense since we are only interested in (1) here.
>>> So, checking the Clang version is sensible and matches
>>> the explanation in the comment block.
> I thought one of the problems (which is quickly draining away) that
> needed to be solved here is that some Clang trunk builds (that report
> as version 14) don't yet have support for -Wunreachable-code-fallthrough
> since they aren't new enough.
Philip, how often is the kernel test robot's clang version rebuilt?
Would it be possible to bump it to latest ToT or at least
9ed4a94d6451046a51ef393cd62f00710820a7e8 so that we do not get bit by
this warning when we go to enable this flag?
I do not know of any other CI aside from ours that is testing with tip
of tree clang and ours should already have a clang that includes my
patch since it comes from apt.llvm.org.
>>> # Warn about unmarked fall-throughs in switch statement.
>>> # Clang prior to 14.0.0 warned on unreachable fallthroughs with
>>> # -Wimplicit-fallthrough, which is unacceptable due to IS_ENABLED().
>>> # https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51094
>>> ifeq ($(firstword $(sort $(CONFIG_CLANG_VERSION) 140000)),140000)
>>> KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wimplicit-fallthrough
Very clever and nifty trick! I have verified that it works for clang 13
and 14 along with a theoretical clang 15. Gustavo, feel free to stick a
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <email@example.com>
Tested-by: Nathan Chancellor <firstname.lastname@example.org>
if you so desire.
>>> The $(sort ...) is alphabetical sort, not numeric sort.
>>> It works for us because the minimum Clang version is 10.0.1
>>> (that is CONFIG_CLANG_VERSION is always 6-digit)
>>> It will break when Clang version 100.0.0 is released.
>>> But, before that, we will raise the minimum supported clang version,
>>> and this conditional will go away.
> If a version test is preferred, cool; this is a nice trick. :)
>> I like this. :)
>> I'm going to make the 0-day robot test it in my tree, first.
> Sounds good to me!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-17 23:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-17 0:56 Nathan Chancellor
2021-08-17 4:16 ` kernel test robot
2021-08-17 4:20 ` Nathan Chancellor
2021-08-17 4:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-08-17 4:55 ` Nathan Chancellor
2021-08-17 18:03 ` Kees Cook
2021-08-17 18:25 ` Nathan Chancellor
2021-08-17 21:17 ` Masahiro Yamada
2021-08-17 21:33 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2021-08-17 23:06 ` Kees Cook
2021-08-17 23:23 ` Nathan Chancellor [this message]
2021-08-17 23:40 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2021-08-18 4:15 ` Masahiro Yamada
2021-08-18 4:27 ` Philip Li
2021-08-18 4:45 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2021-08-18 7:31 ` Philip Li
2021-08-18 12:12 ` Mark Brown
2021-08-25 21:09 ` Nick Desaulniers
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--subject='Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for clang 14.0.0+' \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).