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. > > 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. This requirement is actively hostile towards compilers trying to help you spot when you made a mistake and forgot to update one of the $N places you needed to. In this case, I don't think "Because MISRA demand it" is a good enough justification to offset the increased error-prone-ness of the result. ~Andrew P.S. There is a solution here which could work, but IMO a better use of time and energy would be to get MISRA to update their rules to match this century, and stop getting in the way of compiler features intended to help the programmer avoid bugs. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
