[RFC] treewide: cleanup unreachable breaks

Nick Desaulniers ndesaulniers at google.com
Mon Oct 19 19:42:15 UTC 2020


On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 10:43 PM Greg KH <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 09:09:28AM -0700, trix at redhat.com wrote:
> > From: Tom Rix <trix at redhat.com>
> >
> > This is a upcoming change to clean up a new warning treewide.
> > I am wondering if the change could be one mega patch (see below) or
> > normal patch per file about 100 patches or somewhere half way by collecting
> > early acks.
>
> Please break it up into one-patch-per-subsystem, like normal, and get it
> merged that way.
>
> Sending us a patch, without even a diffstat to review, isn't going to
> get you very far...

Tom,
If you're able to automate this cleanup, I suggest checking in a
script that can be run on a directory.  Then for each subsystem you
can say in your commit "I ran scripts/fix_whatever.py on this subdir."
 Then others can help you drive the tree wide cleanup.  Then we can
enable -Wunreachable-code-break either by default, or W=2 right now
might be a good idea.

Ah, George (gbiv@, cc'ed), did an analysis recently of
`-Wunreachable-code-loop-increment`, `-Wunreachable-code-break`, and
`-Wunreachable-code-return` for Android userspace.  From the review:
```
Spoilers: of these, it seems useful to turn on
-Wunreachable-code-loop-increment and -Wunreachable-code-return by
default for Android
...
While these conventions about always having break arguably became
obsolete when we enabled -Wfallthrough, my sample turned up zero
potential bugs caught by this warning, and we'd need to put a lot of
effort into getting a clean tree. So this warning doesn't seem to be
worth it.
```
Looks like there's an order of magnitude of `-Wunreachable-code-break`
than the other two.

We probably should add all 3 to W=2 builds (wrapped in cc-option).
I've filed https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1180 to
follow up on.
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers


More information about the devel mailing list