On Mon, 30 Jan 2023, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> > On 30 Jan 2023, at 07:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >
> > On 27.01.2023 19:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 26.01.2023 19:54, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >>> Looking back at the sheet, it says "rule alread
On 30.01.2023 10:32, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>
>
>> On 30 Jan 2023, at 07:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> On 27.01.2023 19:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 26.01.2023 19:54, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Looking back at the sheet, it says "rule already
> On 30 Jan 2023, at 07:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 27.01.2023 19:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 26.01.2023 19:54, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> Looking back at the sheet, it says "rule already followed by
>>> the community in most cases" whic
On 27.01.2023 19:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 26.01.2023 19:54, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> Looking back at the sheet, it says "rule already followed by
>> the community in most cases" which I assume was based on there being
>> only very few violati
On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 26.01.2023 19:54, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > Coming back to 18.2: it makes sense for Xen and the scanners today work
> > well with this rule, so I think we are fine.
>
> I disagree.
OK. I'll resend this patch, removing 18.2. I'll mark it appropriat
On 26.01.2023 19:54, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> Coming back to 18.2: it makes sense for Xen and the scanners today work
> well with this rule, so I think we are fine.
I disagree. Looking back at the sheet, it says "rule already followed by
the community in most cases" which I assume was based on
On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 26.01.2023 16:59, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 25.01.2023 21:57, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >>> From: Stefano Stabellini
> >>>
> >>> As agreed during the last MISRA C discussion, I am adding the followin
On 26.01.2023 16:59, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 25.01.2023 21:57, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> From: Stefano Stabellini
>>>
>>> As agreed during the last MISRA C discussion, I am adding the following
>>> MISRA C rules: 7.1, 7.3, 18.3.
>>>
>>> I am al
On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 25.01.2023 21:57, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > From: Stefano Stabellini
> >
> > As agreed during the last MISRA C discussion, I am adding the following
> > MISRA C rules: 7.1, 7.3, 18.3.
> >
> > I am also adding 13.1 and 18.2 that were "agreed pendin
On 25.01.2023 21:57, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> From: Stefano Stabellini
>
> As agreed during the last MISRA C discussion, I am adding the following
> MISRA C rules: 7.1, 7.3, 18.3.
>
> I am also adding 13.1 and 18.2 that were "agreed pending an analysis on
> the amount of violations".
>
> In
From: Stefano Stabellini
As agreed during the last MISRA C discussion, I am adding the following
MISRA C rules: 7.1, 7.3, 18.3.
I am also adding 13.1 and 18.2 that were "agreed pending an analysis on
the amount of violations".
In the case of 13.1 there are zero violations reported by cppcheck.
11 matches
Mail list logo