Hi,
On 15/11/2023 11:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
On 2023-11-14 23:12, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 14/11/2023 15:36, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
To be able to check for the existence of the necessary subsections in
the documentation for MISRA C:2012 Dir 4.1, ECLAIR needs to have a
source
file that is built.
This file is generated from 'C-runtime-failures.rst' in docs/misra
and the configuration is updated accordingly.
Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetr...@bugseng.com>
---
Changes from RFC:
- Dropped unused/useless code
- Revised the sed command
- Revised the clean target
Changes in v2:
- Added explanative comment to the makefile
- printf instead of echo
Changes in v3:
- Terminate the generated file with a newline
- Build it with -std=c99, so that the documentation
for D1.1 applies.
Changes in v5:
- Transform and build the file directly in the eclair-specific directory
---
automation/eclair_analysis/build.sh | 21 +++++++++++++++++++--
automation/eclair_analysis/prepare.sh | 7 ++++---
2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/automation/eclair_analysis/build.sh
b/automation/eclair_analysis/build.sh
index ec087dd822fa..f24292ed0643 100755
--- a/automation/eclair_analysis/build.sh
+++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/build.sh
@@ -33,12 +33,29 @@ else
PROCESSORS=6
fi
+runtime_failures_docs() {
+ doc="C-runtime-failures.rst"
+ builddir="automation/eclair_analysis"
+
+ cp "docs/misra/${doc}" "${builddir}"
Is it necessary to copy the .rst? IOW, would it be sufficient to use...
+ cd "${builddir}"
+ printf "/*\n\n" >"${doc}.tmp"
+ sed -e 's|\*/|*//*|g' "${doc}" >>"${doc}.tmp"
... docs/misc/${doc} here?
I didn't want to leave a stray file under docs/misra, but it's not
essential.
I am confused. I am suggesting to use:
sed -e 's|\*/|*//*|g' "../../docs/misc/${doc}" >> "${doc}.tmp"
So *.tmp is still created at the same place.
+ printf "\n\n*/\n" >>"${doc}.tmp"
+ mv "${doc}.tmp" "${doc}.c"
NIT: I am not sure why you need to first create .tmp and then create.c.
Wasn't this a pattern to defend against interruptions of the build, just
as I did in v3?
+$(TARGETS:.o=.c): %.c: %.rst
+ printf "/*\n\n" > $@.tmp
+ sed -e 's|\*/|*//*|g' $< >> $@.tmp
+ printf "\n\n*/\n" >> $@.tmp
+ mv $@.tmp $@
Yes but it makes sense for the Makefile because the target would not be
re-executed if *.c exists.
But I don't think this is the case for you because you are using a bash
script. So your function should always be re-executed regardless on
whether it was interrupted or not.
+
+ # Cannot redirect to /dev/null because it would be excluded from
the analysis
+ "${CROSS_COMPILE}gcc-12" -std=c99 -c "${doc}.c" -o "${doc}.o"
NIT: It would be helpful to specify why -std=c99 is used. Above, you
suggest this is to enable D1.1.
Yeah, the comment in the changelog should be pasted here
NIT: Can we define CC and use here and ...
+ cd -
+}
+
(
- cd xen
+ runtime_failures_docs
make "-j${PROCESSORS}" "-l${PROCESSORS}.0" \
"CROSS_COMPILE=${CROSS_COMPILE}" \
"CC=${CROSS_COMPILE}gcc-12" \
...? This would make easier to re-use the code.
I don't expect this build script to be changed much to be honest, but if
you think
this is beneficial then it's ok.
This is not only about code evolving. It makes easier to spot your are
using the same compiler. I would not have made the remark if you were
using 'gcc'.
But I noticed you were using gcc-12 and originally thought it was a
mistake until I saw the second use.
The advantage of a variable CC (and CXX) is you can add a comment on top
why you are specifically requestion gcc-12? IOW, why is gcc not fine?
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
