Subject: Re: [PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

From: Dan Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 17:08:49 +0300

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 05:32:51PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 8:17 AM Kees Cook <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > If none of the 140 patches here fix a real bug, and there is no change
> > > to machine code then it sounds to me like a W=2 kind of a warning.
> >
> > FWIW, this series has found at least one bug so far:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAFCwf11izHF=g1mGry1fE5kvFFFrxzhPSM6qKAO8gxSp=[email-masked]/
> 
> So looks like the bulk of these are:
> switch (x) {
>   case 0:
>     ++x;
>   default:
>     break;
> }

This should not generate a warning.

> 
> I have a patch that fixes those up for clang:
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D91895
> 
> There's 3 other cases that don't quite match between GCC and Clang I
> observe in the kernel:
> switch (x) {
>   case 0:
>     ++x;
>   default:
>     goto y;
> }
> y:;

This should generate a warning.

> switch (x) {
>   case 0:
>     ++x;
>   default:
>     return;
> }

Warn for this.

> switch (x) {
>   case 0:
>     ++x;
>   default:
>     ;
> }

Don't warn for this.

If adding a break statement changes the flow of the code then warn about
potentially missing break statements, but if it doesn't change anything
then don't warn about it.

regards,
dan carpenter