On 29/08/23 08:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 28.08.2023 15:19, Simone Ballarin wrote:
--- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
+++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
@@ -80,6 +80,7 @@ inline functions."
-doc_begin="This header file is autogenerated or empty, therefore it poses no
risk if included more than once."
While unrelated to, the change at hand, I still have a question on this:
How come it is deemed universally safe to multi-include generated headers.
I would have said that whether that's safe depends on the nature of the
generated code in the header. Only truly empty ones are uniformly safe to
include any number of times.
Yes, I agree with you. The mere fact that a file is auto-generated does
not imply anything, moreover, this deviation is not even reported in
rule.rst. In the next series, I'll drop it.
Jan
+-config=MC3R1.D4.10,reports+={safe, "first_area(text(^/\\* empty \\*/$,
begin-1))"}
-file_tag+={empty_header, "^xen/arch/arm/efi/runtime\\.h$"}
-file_tag+={autogen_headers,
"^xen/include/xen/compile\\.h$||^xen/include/generated/autoconf.h$||^xen/include/xen/hypercall-defs.h$"}
-config=MC3R1.D4.10,reports+={safe,
"all_area(all_loc(file(empty_header||autogen_headers)))"}
--
Simone Ballarin, M.Sc.
Field Application Engineer, BUGSENG (https://bugseng.com)
