On Wed, 25 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> So developers and distributions using Clang can't have
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough enabled because GCC is less strict (which has
> been shown in this thread to lead to bugs)? We'd like to have nice
> things too, you know.
>
Apparently the GCC devel
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 1:33 PM Finn Thain wrote:
> >
> > Or do you think that a codebase can somehow satisfy multiple checkers
> > and their divergent interpretations of the language spec?
>
> Have we found any case
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 1:33 PM Finn Thain
> wrote:
> >
> > Or do you think that a codebase can somehow satisfy multiple checkers
> > and their divergent interpretations of the language spec?
>
> Have we found any c
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>
> The C standard has nothing to do with this. We use compiler extensions
> of several kinds, for many years. Even discounting those extensions, the
> kernel is not even conforming to C due to e.g. strict aliasing. I am not
> sure what you are trying
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 08:31:30AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Really, no ... something which produces no improvement has no value at
> > all ... we really shouldn't be wasting maintainer time with it because
> > it has a cost to merge. I'm not sure
On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 11:58 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> > it's not for me to prove that such patches don't affect code
> > generation. That's for the patch author and (unfortunately) for
> > reviewers.
>
> Id
On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, Finn Thain wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2020, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It isn't that much effort, isn't it? Plus we need to take into
> > > account the future
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>
> It isn't that much effort, isn't it? Plus we need to take into account
> the future mistakes that it might prevent, too.
We should also take into account optimisim about future improvements in
tooling.
> So even if there were zero problems found
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 08:49 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > We can enforce sysfs_emit going forwards
> > using tools like checkpatch
>
> It's not really possible for checkpatch to find or warn about
> sysfs uses of sprintf. checkpatch is really just a
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Avoids the inverted check compared to the open-coded version.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter
> Cc: Finn Thain
> Cc: linux-m...@lists.linux-m68k.org
Acked-by: Finn Thain
> ---
> include/linux/nubus.h | 2 +-
> 1 file ch
10 matches
Mail list logo
