On 26.05.2022 03:02, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Wed, 25 May 2022, Julien Grall wrote: >> On 25/05/2022 01:35, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> +- Rule: Dir 4.7 >>> + - Severity: Required >>> + - Summary: If a function returns error information then that error >>> information shall be tested >>> + - Link: >>> https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/D_04_07.c >> >> >> ... this one. We are using (void) + a comment when the return is ignored on >> purpose. This is technically not-compliant with MISRA but the best we can do >> in some situation. >> >> With your proposed wording, we would technically have to remove them (or not >> introduce new one). So I think we need to document that we are allowing >> deviations so long they are commented. > > Absolutely yes. All of these rules can have deviations as long as they > make sense and they are commented. Note that we still have to work out > a good tagging system so that ECLAIR and cppcheck can recognize the > deviations automatically but for now saying that they need to be > commented is sufficient I think. > > So I'll add the following on top of the file: > > """ > It is possible that in specific circumstances it is best not to follow a > rule because it is not possible or because the alternative leads to > better code quality. Those cases are called "deviations". They are > permissible as long as they are documented with an in-code comment. > """
Hmm, so you really mean in-code comments. I don't think this will scale well (see e.g. the DCE related intended deviation), and it also goes against the "no special casing for every static analysis tool" concern I did voice on the call. Jan
