Hi, > On 22 Jun 2022, at 15:10, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > > On 22.06.2022 15:55, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >> Hi Jan, >> >>> On 22 Jun 2022, at 14:01, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 22.06.2022 14:55, Michal Orzel wrote: >>>> On 22.06.2022 12:25, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 20.06.2022 09:02, Michal Orzel wrote: >>>>>> This series fixes all the findings for MISRA C 2012 8.1 rule, reported by >>>>>> cppcheck 2.7 with misra addon, for Arm (arm32/arm64 - target >>>>>> allyesconfig). >>>>>> Fixing this rule comes down to replacing implicit 'unsigned' with >>>>>> explicit >>>>>> 'unsigned int' type as there are no other violations being part of that >>>>>> rule >>>>>> in the Xen codebase. >>>>> >>>>> I'm puzzled, I have to admit. While I agree with all the examples in the >>>>> doc, I notice that there's no instance of "signed" or "unsigned" there. >>>>> Which matches my understanding that "unsigned" and "signed" on their own >>>>> (just like "long") are proper types, and hence the omission of "int" >>>>> there is not an "omission of an explicit type". >>>>> >>>> Cppcheck was choosed as a tool for MISRA checking and it is considering it >>>> as a violation. >>> >>> Which by no means indicates that the tool pointing out something as a >>> violation actually is one. >>> >>>> It treats unsigned as an implicit type. You can see this flag in cppcheck >>>> source code: >>>> >>>> "fIsImplicitInt = (1U << 31), // Is "int" token implicitly added?" >>> >>> Neither the name of the variable nor the comment clarify that this is about >>> the specific case of "unsigned". As said there's also the fact that they >>> don't appear to point out the lack of "int" when seeing plain "long" (or >>> "long long"). I fully agree that "extern x;" or "const y;" lack explicit >>> "int". >> >> I am a bit puzzled here trying to understand what you actually want here. >> >> Do you suggest the change is ok but you are not ok with the fact that is >> flagged >> as MISRA fix even though cppcheck is saying otherwise ? > > First of all I'd like to understand whether what we're talking about here > are actually violations (and if so, why that is). Further actions / requests > depend on the answer.
I would say yes but this would need to be confirmed by Roberto I guess. In any case if we think this is something we want and the change is right and cppcheck is saying that it solves a violation, I am wondering what is the point of discussing that extensively this change. Cheers Bertrand
