> On 14 Nov 2022, at 16:25, Anthony PERARD wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 10:47:36AM +, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>> xen/Makefile| 50 ++-
>
> Hi Luca,
Hi,
>
> Could you write a shell script which would probably be easier to
> read/modify than this rather
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 12:30:39PM +, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> The cppcheck workflow instead is:
>
> 1) call analysis-parse-tags-cppcheck
> 2) generate cppcheck suppression list
> 3) build Xen (and run cppcheck on built source files)
> 4) collect and generate report
> 5) call analysis-clean
>
>
On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 10:47:36AM +, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> xen/Makefile| 50 ++-
Hi Luca,
Could you write a shell script which would probably be easier to
read/modify than this rather complicated looking set of Makefile rules?
As I see it, a potential `anal
On 14.11.2022 13:30, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>> On 14 Nov 2022, at 07:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 11.11.2022 21:52, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022, Jan Beulich wrote:
Did you consider the alternative approach of copying the tree, altering
it (while or after copying), run
> On 14 Nov 2022, at 07:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 11.11.2022 21:52, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 11.11.2022 11:42, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2022, at 10:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 09.11.2022 11:08, Luca Fancellu wrote:
On 11.11.2022 21:52, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 11.11.2022 11:42, Luca Fancellu wrote:
On 9 Nov 2022, at 10:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 09.11.2022 11:08, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>> On 07.11.2022 11:47, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>> Now analys
On Fri, 11 Nov 2022, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 11.11.2022 11:42, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> >> On 9 Nov 2022, at 10:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 09.11.2022 11:08, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> > On 07.11.2022 11:47, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> > Now analysis-build-coverity will be called, the best match i
On 11.11.2022 11:42, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>> On 9 Nov 2022, at 10:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 09.11.2022 11:08, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> On 07.11.2022 11:47, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> Now analysis-build-coverity will be called, the best match is
> analysis-build-%, so again the dependency
> On 9 Nov 2022, at 10:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 09.11.2022 11:08, Luca Fancellu wrote:
On 07.11.2022 11:47, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> +Here is an example to add a new justification in
> false-positive-.json::
With already present in the name, ...
> +|{
On 09.11.2022 11:08, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>> On 07.11.2022 11:47, Luca Fancellu wrote:
+Here is an example to add a new justification in
false-positive-.json::
>>>
>>> With already present in the name, ...
>>>
+|{
+|"version": "1.0",
+|"content": [
+|
>>
>> On 07.11.2022 11:47, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>> +Here is an example to add a new justification in
>>> false-positive-.json::
>>
>> With already present in the name, ...
>>
>>> +|{
>>> +|"version": "1.0",
>>> +|"content": [
>>> +|{
>>> +|"id": "SAF-0-false-posit
On 08.11.2022 18:13, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>> On 8 Nov 2022, at 15:49, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 08.11.2022 15:00, Luca Fancellu wrote:
On 8 Nov 2022, at 11:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.11.2022 11:59, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>> On 07.11.2022 11:47, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>> @@ -757,6
> On 8 Nov 2022, at 15:49, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 08.11.2022 15:00, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>> On 8 Nov 2022, at 11:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 08.11.2022 11:59, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> On 07.11.2022 11:47, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>> @@ -757,6 +758,51 @@ cppcheck-version:
>> $(objtr
On 08.11.2022 15:00, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>> On 8 Nov 2022, at 11:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 08.11.2022 11:59, Luca Fancellu wrote:
On 07.11.2022 11:47, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> @@ -757,6 +758,51 @@ cppcheck-version:
> $(objtree)/include/generated/compiler-def.h:
> $(Q)$(CC) -dM
> On 8 Nov 2022, at 11:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 08.11.2022 11:59, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>> On 07.11.2022 11:47, Luca Fancellu wrote:
+Here is an example to add a new justification in
false-positive-.json::
>>>
>>> With already present in the name, ...
>>>
+|{
+|
On 08.11.2022 11:59, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>> On 07.11.2022 11:47, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>> +Here is an example to add a new justification in
>>> false-positive-.json::
>>
>> With already present in the name, ...
>>
>>> +|{
>>> +|"version": "1.0",
>>> +|"content": [
>>> +|{
>>> +|
Hi Jan
>
> On 07.11.2022 11:47, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>> +Here is an example to add a new justification in
>> false-positive-.json::
>
> With already present in the name, ...
>
>> +|{
>> +|"version": "1.0",
>> +|"content": [
>> +|{
>> +|"id": "SAF-0-false-positive-"
On 07.11.2022 11:47, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> +Here is an example to add a new justification in false-positive-.json::
With already present in the name, ...
> +|{
> +|"version": "1.0",
> +|"content": [
> +|{
> +|"id": "SAF-0-false-positive-",
> +|"analyser":
Add new targets to makefile, analysis-{coverity,eclair} that will:
- Create a tag database using a new tool called xenfusa-gen-tags.py
- Get every file with the FuSa tag SAF- in-code comment, create a
copy of it as .safparse and substituting the tags with
proprietary tool syntax in-code com
19 matches
Mail list logo
