From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Drop -Wdeclaration-after-statement
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 12:50:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190312125017.b1f5af3350434ca05b5fe35e@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190312172447.GA10166@avx2>
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?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-12 19:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-10 13:35 Alexey Dobriyan
2019-03-12 0:38 ` Andrew Morton
2019-03-12 17:24 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2019-03-12 19:50 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2019-03-12 20:18 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2019-03-12 20:53 ` Andrew Morton
2019-03-12 20:24 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2022-02-25 8:15 Alexey Dobriyan
2022-02-25 10:01 ` David Laight
2022-02-25 17:24 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2022-02-26 1:10 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190312125017.b1f5af3350434ca05b5fe35e@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome