On Wed, 30 Aug 2023, Bertrand Marquis wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > > On 30 Aug 2023, at 02:59, Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabell...@amd.com> > > > > Add 14.3, with a project-wide deviations on if statements. > > Add 14.4, clarifying that implicit conversions of integers, chars and > > pointers to bool are allowed. > > > > Also take the opportunity to clarify that parameters of function pointer > > types are expected to have names (Rule 8.2). > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabell...@amd.com> > > --- > > docs/misra/rules.rst | 20 +++++++++++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/docs/misra/rules.rst b/docs/misra/rules.rst > > index db30632b93..6cde4feeae 100644 > > --- a/docs/misra/rules.rst > > +++ b/docs/misra/rules.rst > > @@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change. > > * - `Rule 8.2 > > <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_08_02.c>`_ > > - Required > > - Function types shall be in prototype form with named parameters > > - - > > + - Function pointer types shall have named parameters too. > > > I would just modify to Function and Function pointers types shall be ...
Sure, I can do that. > > > > * - `Rule 8.3 > > <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_08_03.c>`_ > > - Required > > @@ -332,6 +332,24 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change. > > - A loop counter shall not have essentially floating type > > - > > > > + * - `Rule 14.3 > > <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_14_03.c>`_ > > + - Required > > + - Controlling expressions shall not be invariant > > + - Due to the extensive usage of IS_ENABLED, sizeof compile-time > > + checks, and other constructs that are detected as errors by MISRA > > + C scanners, managing the configuration of a MISRA C scanner for > > + this rule would be unmanageable. Thus, this rule is adopted with > > + a project-wide deviation on 'if' statements. The rule only > > + applies to while, for, do ... while, ?:, and switch statements. > > Didn't we also said that we would accept while(0) and while(1) ? > Also i agree with Jan, ? is really the same as if so we should not treat it > differently. I took the list of things the rule applies to from the text of the rule itself. However, I think you are right about the ?: and it should be deviated together with if. I can also add while(0) and while(1).
