| Message ID | 20221220085100.22848-10-luca.fancellu@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | cppcheck rule 20.7 fixes | expand |
On 20.12.2022 09:50, Luca Fancellu wrote: > Cppcheck has found a violation of rule 20.7 for the macro > __config_enabled but the preprocessor branch where this macro is > defined should not be analysed by cppcheck when CPPCHECK macro is > defined, hence this is a false positive of the tool and we can > safely suppress the finding. So what was commit 43aa3f6e72d3's ("xen/build: Add cppcheck and cppcheck-html make rules") adjustment to the file about then? Jan
> On 20 Dec 2022, at 09:48, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote: > > On 20.12.2022 09:50, Luca Fancellu wrote: >> Cppcheck has found a violation of rule 20.7 for the macro >> __config_enabled but the preprocessor branch where this macro is >> defined should not be analysed by cppcheck when CPPCHECK macro is >> defined, hence this is a false positive of the tool and we can >> safely suppress the finding. > > So what was commit 43aa3f6e72d3's ("xen/build: Add cppcheck and > cppcheck-html make rules") adjustment to the file about then? Yes the commit is right, cppcheck itself needs that, the problem here comes from the misra add-on (the cppcheck component that does the MISRA analysis) that is wrong. Anyway I will drop this patch together with all the false-positive on the Tool for now. > > Jan >
diff --git a/docs/misra/false-positive-cppcheck.json b/docs/misra/false-positive-cppcheck.json index 5e7d9377f60b..c8ee3c0c6317 100644 --- a/docs/misra/false-positive-cppcheck.json +++ b/docs/misra/false-positive-cppcheck.json @@ -17,6 +17,13 @@ }, { "id": "SAF-2-false-positive-cppcheck", + "violation-id": "misra-c2012-20.7", + "tool-version": "2.7", + "name": "R20.7 on preprocessor branch that should be disabled", + "text": "This preprocessor branch should be disabled when CPPCHECK macro is active, so there should not be violation." + }, + { + "id": "SAF-3-false-positive-cppcheck", "violation-id": "", "tool-version": "", "name": "Sentinel", diff --git a/xen/include/xen/kconfig.h b/xen/include/xen/kconfig.h index a717b0819c2e..92373c018950 100644 --- a/xen/include/xen/kconfig.h +++ b/xen/include/xen/kconfig.h @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ #define __ARG_PLACEHOLDER_1 0, #define config_enabled(cfg) _config_enabled(cfg) #define _config_enabled(value) __config_enabled(__ARG_PLACEHOLDER_##value) +/* SAF-2-false-positive-cppcheck R20.7 but cppcheck should not check here */ #define __config_enabled(arg1_or_junk) ___config_enabled(arg1_or_junk 1, 0) #define ___config_enabled(__ignored, val, ...) val
Cppcheck has found a violation of rule 20.7 for the macro __config_enabled but the preprocessor branch where this macro is defined should not be analysed by cppcheck when CPPCHECK macro is defined, hence this is a false positive of the tool and we can safely suppress the finding. Eclair and coverity does not report this finding. Signed-off-by: Luca Fancellu <luca.fancellu@arm.com> --- docs/misra/false-positive-cppcheck.json | 7 +++++++ xen/include/xen/kconfig.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)