On 14/06/2023 7:52 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 13.06.2023 21:47, Roberto Bagnara wrote:
>> On 13/06/23 19:45, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 13/06/2023 6:39 pm, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 13/06/2023 17:22, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>>> These are disliked specifically by MISRA, but they also interfere
>>>>> with code
>>>> Please explicitly name the rule.
>>> I can't remember it off the top of my head.
>>>
>>> Stefano/Bertrand?
>> Rule 2.1
> That's about unreachable code, but inside the constructs there's nothing
> that's unreachable afaics. Plus expanding "manually" them wouldn't change
> reachability, would it?
I bet it's complaining about the while() after the goto.
I can see why things end up caring - because this violation can only be
spotted in the fully-preprocessed source where the macro-ness has gone
away, and *then* applying blanket rules.
Which comes back to the original point I made on the call yesterday that
do{}while(0) correctness for macros is far more important than some,
honestly suspect, claim about the resulting code being somehow "better"
without the macro safety.
~Andrew
