Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "cafcwf11izhf".
2020 Nov 24
4
[PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
...0 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=Kr_CQ at mail.gmail.com/
So looks like the bulk of these are:
switch (x) {
case 0:
++x;
default:
break;
}
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 an...
2020 Nov 24
4
[PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
...0 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=Kr_CQ at mail.gmail.com/
So looks like the bulk of these are:
switch (x) {
case 0:
++x;
default:
break;
}
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 an...
2020 Nov 24
4
[PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
...0 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=Kr_CQ at mail.gmail.com/
So looks like the bulk of these are:
switch (x) {
case 0:
++x;
default:
break;
}
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 an...
2020 Nov 22
3
[PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
...ill happily optimize away any behavioral
> > redundancy.
>
> 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=Kr_CQ at mail.gmail.com/
--
Kees Cook
2020 Nov 22
3
[PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
...ill happily optimize away any behavioral
> > redundancy.
>
> 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=Kr_CQ at mail.gmail.com/
--
Kees Cook
2020 Nov 22
3
[PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
...ill happily optimize away any behavioral
> > redundancy.
>
> 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=Kr_CQ at mail.gmail.com/
--
Kees Cook