>>> >>> Luca answered to a similar, more generic, question a few days ago about >>> Coverity: https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=169657904027210 >> Interesting. >>> >>> So even if we get cppcheck to work like that, we would lose Coverity >>> support. >> I think my suggestion was probably misunderstood. So let me clarify it. To >> cover multi-line, we could write the following in Xen: >> /* cppcheck tag next-3-lines */ >> line 1 >> line 2 >> line 3 >> AFAIU Eclair supports multi-line, so the tag would be transformed to there >> internal solution. For CPPCheck, this could be transformed to: >> /* cppcheck tag next-3 lines */ >> line 1 /* generated cppcheck tag */ >> line 2 /* generated cppcheck tag */ >> line 3 /* generated cppcheck tag */ >> Now, I understand that coverity doesn't support any of the two format. So >> the only solution would be to add the comment before each line which would >> impact the line numbers. This is not great, but I think this is acceptable >> as the context would likely help to find where this is coming from. > > Just to clarify, here I meant that for coverity, a script before the scan > could convert to the multi-line version. So the line change only impact > Coverity.
Hi Julien, We’ve tried to avoid that because when the tool insert lines, the resultant report would give wrong lines numbers if any violation is reported after the insertion points. So there will be a mismatch between the codebase and the report findings from some point on in the file. I’ve contacted Synopsys about the in-code comments, to discover if they have different syntax (only the one we know is proposed in the documentation), I will let you know if something comes up. Cheers, Luca
