[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add missing default labels to switch statements

Hi Stefano,

On 22/02/2019 21:58, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2019, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 22/02/2019 21:00, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2019, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>>>>> BTW, I checked the series with -Wswitch-default:
>>>>>>> -Wswitch-default
>>>>>>> Warn whenever a switch statement does not have a default case.
>>>>>>>> Furthermore, using BUG() is a pretty bad idea in switch.
>>>>>>> It is and not only in the switch. The reason I put BUG is that I tried
>>>>>>> to follow
>>>>>>> the existing "error handling" at those places.
>>>>>> It is not because BUG() is been used today in some places that we need to
>>>>>> continue to spread it.
>>>>>>> Use of BUG() itself is another topic which will also need to be
>>>>>>> addressed
>>>>>> So we should not add more of them...
>>>>> Again, I see this as a dedicated change. So, in the current series I think
>>>>> it is
>>>>> acceptable to use the existing way of error handling if any at all.
>>>> That's not how it works in upstream. If you know some constructs are 
>>>> wrong, it
>>>> is best to try to address partially the problem directly then having so you
>>>> reduce the amounts of change afterwards.
>>>> So please try to not introduce more BUG() in the code base.
>>> Hi Oleksandr, Julien,
>>> Julien's right that we should not introduce any more BUG()s. In fact,
>>> each of them makes the code less safe, not more safe! The purpose of
>>> MISRAC 16.4 is "defensive programming": write the code in a way that is
>>> more (not less!) resilient to failure.
>>> So, I think it is a good idea to introduce a default label because it
>>> can help us spot unexpected issues. Instead of calling BUG() in the
>>> default handler, which is detrimental, we should return an error when
>>> possible, or just print a warning.
>> domain_crash() is almost always better than BUG().  It is very obvious
>> if it gets hit, and wont crash Xen.
> That's a good suggestion.
>>> As 16.4 clearly state, even a simple comment would be enough to address
>>> the rule. We just need to explain why a default label is not needed.
>>> Such as:
>>>    default:
>>>    /* unreachable because blah and blah */
>> What a simple comment doesn't do is avoid breaking -Wswitch.
> I don't know how to reconcile 16.4 with -Wswitch. One could argue that
> -Wswitch could be a good way to address 16.4, but then we introduce a
> compiler specific requirement. Typically gcc is not the compiler of
> choice for these environments, unfortunately forcing gcc is not an
> option.

Well, you could build with GCC and then build with your custom 
compiler... But, GCC is pretty much the only choice for Xen on Arm today 
as we don't build with clang and I pretty doubt we can build with compcert.


Julien Grall
Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.