Re: [RFC PATCH 03/13] usb: remove the usage of the list iterator after the loop

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Jakob <jakobkoschel@gmail.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
	"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>,
	Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@gmail.com>,
	Cristiano Giuffrida <c.giuffrida@vu.nl>,
	"Bos, H.J." <h.j.bos@vu.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/13] usb: remove the usage of the list iterator after the loop
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:43:10 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wicJ0VxEmnpb8=TJfkSDytFuf+dvQJj8kFWj0OF2FBZ9w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0DOC3s7x380XR_kN8UYQvkRqvE5LkHQfK2-KzwhcYqQQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:25 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> I looked at the gcc documentation for this flag, and it tells me that
> it's default-enabled for std=c99 or higher. Turning it on for --std=gnu89
> shows the same warning, so at least it doesn't sound like the actual
> behavior changed, only the warning output. clang does not warn
> for this code at all, regardless of the --std= flag.

Ok, so we should be able to basically convert '--std=gnu89' into
'--std=gnu11 -Wno-shift-negative-value' with no expected change of
behavior.

Of course, maybe we need to make -Wno-shift-negative-value be
conditional on the compiler supporting it in the first place?

I really would love to finally move forward on this, considering that
it's been brewing for many many years.

I think the loop iterators are the biggest user-visible thing, but
there might be others.

And some googling seems to show that the reason for
-Wshift-negative-value is that with C99 the semantics changed for
targets that weren't two's complement. We *really* don't care.

Of course, the C standard being the bunch of incompetents they are,
they in the process apparently made left-shifts undefined (rather than
implementation-defined). Christ, they keep on making the same mistakes
over and over. What was the definition of insanity again?

                  Linus