| Message ID | 10af9145252a2f5c31ea0f13cbb67cbe76a8ba3a.1718892030.git.federico.serafini@bugseng.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | x86: address violations of MISRA C Rule 16.3 | expand |
On 20.06.2024 16:02, Federico Serafini wrote: > --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl > +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl > @@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ safe." > -doc_end > > -doc_begin="Switch clauses ending with an explicit comment indicating the fallthrough intention are safe." > --config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe, "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(^(?s).*/\\* [fF]all ?through.? \\*/.*$,0..1))))"} > +-config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe, "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(^(?s).*/\\* [fF]all[ -]?through.? \\*/.*$,0..2))))"} Is is a regex, isn't it? Doesn't the period also need escaping (or enclosing in square brackets)? (I realize it was like this before, but still.) > --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst > +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst > @@ -353,6 +353,10 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules: > However, the use of such comments in new code is deprecated: > the pseudo-keyword "fallthrough" shall be used. > - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. The accepted comments are: > + - /\* fall-through \*/ > + - /\* Fall-through. \*/ > + - /\* Fall-through \*/ > + - /\* fall-through. \*/ > - /\* fall through \*/ > - /\* fall through. \*/ > - /\* fallthrough \*/ Nit: Can the capital-F and non-capital-f variants please be next to each other? Jan
On 20/06/24 16:15, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 20.06.2024 16:02, Federico Serafini wrote: >> --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl >> +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl >> @@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ safe." >> -doc_end >> >> -doc_begin="Switch clauses ending with an explicit comment indicating the fallthrough intention are safe." >> --config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe, "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(^(?s).*/\\* [fF]all ?through.? \\*/.*$,0..1))))"} >> +-config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe, "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(^(?s).*/\\* [fF]all[ -]?through.? \\*/.*$,0..2))))"} > > Is is a regex, isn't it? Doesn't the period also need escaping (or enclosing > in square brackets)? (I realize it was like this before, but still.) Yes, thanks for noticing. > >> --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst >> +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst >> @@ -353,6 +353,10 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules: >> However, the use of such comments in new code is deprecated: >> the pseudo-keyword "fallthrough" shall be used. >> - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. The accepted comments are: >> + - /\* fall-through \*/ >> + - /\* Fall-through. \*/ >> + - /\* Fall-through \*/ >> + - /\* fall-through. \*/ >> - /\* fall through \*/ >> - /\* fall through. \*/ >> - /\* fallthrough \*/ > > Nit: Can the capital-F and non-capital-f variants please be next to each other? Ok.
Hi, On 20/06/2024 15:02, Federico Serafini wrote: > Update ECLAIR configuration to deviate MISRA C Rule 16.3 > using different version of hypened fall-through and search for > the comment for 2 lines after the last statement. > > Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@bugseng.com> > --- > automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl | 2 +- > docs/misra/deviations.rst | 4 ++++ > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl > index b8f9155267..b99a6b8a92 100644 > --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl > +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl > @@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ safe." > -doc_end > > -doc_begin="Switch clauses ending with an explicit comment indicating the fallthrough intention are safe." > --config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe, "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(^(?s).*/\\* [fF]all ?through.? \\*/.*$,0..1))))"} > +-config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe, "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(^(?s).*/\\* [fF]all[ -]?through.? \\*/.*$,0..2))))"} > -doc_end > > -doc_begin="Switch statements having a controlling expression of enum type deliberately do not have a default case: gcc -Wall enables -Wswitch which warns (and breaks the build as we use -Werror) if one of the enum labels is missing from the switch." > diff --git a/docs/misra/deviations.rst b/docs/misra/deviations.rst > index 41cdfbe5f5..411e1fed3d 100644 > --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst > +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst > @@ -353,6 +353,10 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules: > However, the use of such comments in new code is deprecated: > the pseudo-keyword "fallthrough" shall be used. > - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. The accepted comments are: > + - /\* fall-through \*/ > + - /\* Fall-through. \*/ > + - /\* Fall-through \*/ > + - /\* fall-through. \*/ How many places use the 4 above? The reason I am asking is I am not particularly happy to add yet another set of variant. I would rather prefer if we settle down with a single comment and therefore convert them to the pseudo-keyword. Cheers,
On 20/06/24 16:39, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi, > > On 20/06/2024 15:02, Federico Serafini wrote: >> Update ECLAIR configuration to deviate MISRA C Rule 16.3 >> using different version of hypened fall-through and search for >> the comment for 2 lines after the last statement. >> >> Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@bugseng.com> >> --- >> automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl | 2 +- >> docs/misra/deviations.rst | 4 ++++ >> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl >> b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl >> index b8f9155267..b99a6b8a92 100644 >> --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl >> +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl >> @@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ safe." >> -doc_end >> -doc_begin="Switch clauses ending with an explicit comment >> indicating the fallthrough intention are safe." >> --config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe, >> "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(^(?s).*/\\* [fF]all ?through.? >> \\*/.*$,0..1))))"} >> +-config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe, >> "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(^(?s).*/\\* [fF]all[ -]?through.? >> \\*/.*$,0..2))))"} >> -doc_end >> -doc_begin="Switch statements having a controlling expression of >> enum type deliberately do not have a default case: gcc -Wall enables >> -Wswitch which warns (and breaks the build as we use -Werror) if one >> of the enum labels is missing from the switch." >> diff --git a/docs/misra/deviations.rst b/docs/misra/deviations.rst >> index 41cdfbe5f5..411e1fed3d 100644 >> --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst >> +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst >> @@ -353,6 +353,10 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules: >> However, the use of such comments in new code is deprecated: >> the pseudo-keyword "fallthrough" shall be used. >> - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. The accepted comments are: >> + - /\* fall-through \*/ >> + - /\* Fall-through. \*/ >> + - /\* Fall-through \*/ >> + - /\* fall-through. \*/ > > How many places use the 4 above? The reason I am asking is I am not > particularly happy to add yet another set of variant. > > I would rather prefer if we settle down with a single comment and > therefore convert them to the pseudo-keyword. 7 occurrences and 3 of them are in xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c PATCH 07/13 modifies emulate.c anyway, so I could remove them in a v2.
diff --git a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl index b8f9155267..b99a6b8a92 100644 --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl @@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ safe." -doc_end -doc_begin="Switch clauses ending with an explicit comment indicating the fallthrough intention are safe." --config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe, "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(^(?s).*/\\* [fF]all ?through.? \\*/.*$,0..1))))"} +-config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe, "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(^(?s).*/\\* [fF]all[ -]?through.? \\*/.*$,0..2))))"} -doc_end -doc_begin="Switch statements having a controlling expression of enum type deliberately do not have a default case: gcc -Wall enables -Wswitch which warns (and breaks the build as we use -Werror) if one of the enum labels is missing from the switch." diff --git a/docs/misra/deviations.rst b/docs/misra/deviations.rst index 41cdfbe5f5..411e1fed3d 100644 --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst @@ -353,6 +353,10 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules: However, the use of such comments in new code is deprecated: the pseudo-keyword "fallthrough" shall be used. - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. The accepted comments are: + - /\* fall-through \*/ + - /\* Fall-through. \*/ + - /\* Fall-through \*/ + - /\* fall-through. \*/ - /\* fall through \*/ - /\* fall through. \*/ - /\* fallthrough \*/
Update ECLAIR configuration to deviate MISRA C Rule 16.3 using different version of hypened fall-through and search for the comment for 2 lines after the last statement. Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@bugseng.com> --- automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl | 2 +- docs/misra/deviations.rst | 4 ++++ 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)