[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 000/141] Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 AM Finn Thain <fthain at telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>
> What I meant was that you've used pessimism as if it was fact.

"future mistakes that it might prevent" is neither pessimism nor states a fact.

> For example, "There is no way to guess what the effect would be if the
> compiler trained programmers to add a knee-jerk 'break' statement to avoid
> a warning".

It is only knee-jerk if you think you are infallible.

> Moreover, what I meant was that preventing programmer mistakes is a
> problem to be solved by development tools

This warning comes from a development tool -- the compiler.

> The idea that retro-fitting new
> language constructs onto mature code is somehow necessary to "prevent
> future mistakes" is entirely questionable.

The kernel is not a frozen codebase.

Further, "mature code vs. risk of change" arguments don't apply here
because the semantics of the program and binary output isn't changing.

> Sure. And if you put -Wimplicit-fallthrough into the Makefile and if that
> leads to well-intentioned patches that cause regressions, it is partly on
> you.

Again: adding a `fallthrough` does not change the program semantics.
If you are a maintainer and want to cross-check, compare the codegen.

> Have you ever considered the overall cost of the countless
> -Wpresume-incompetence flags?

Yeah: negative. On the other hand, the overall cost of the countless
-fI-am-infallible flags is very noticeable.

> Perhaps you pay the power bill for a build farm that produces logs that
> no-one reads? Perhaps you've run git bisect, knowing that the compiler
> messages are not interesting? Or compiled software in using a language
> that generates impenetrable messages? If so, here's a tip:
>
> # grep CFLAGS /etc/portage/make.conf
> CFLAGS="... -Wno-all -Wno-extra ..."
> CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"
>
> Now allow me some pessimism: the hardware upgrades, gigawatt hours and
> wait time attributable to obligatory static analyses are a net loss.

If you really believe compiler warnings and static analysis are
useless and costly, I think there is not much point in continuing the
discussion.

> No, 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.

I was not asking you to prove it. I am stating that proving it is very easy.

Cheers,
Miguel