On 07.12.2023 03:42, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Wed, 6 Dec 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 06.12.2023 04:02, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> --- a/docs/misra/rules.rst >>> +++ b/docs/misra/rules.rst >>> @@ -462,11 +462,23 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change. >>> >>> while(0) and while(1) and alike are allowed. >>> >>> + * - `Rule 16.3 >>> <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_16_03.c>`_ >>> + - Required >>> + - An unconditional break statement shall terminate every >>> + switch-clause >>> + - In addition to break, also other flow control statements such as >>> + continue, return, goto are allowed. >>> + >>> * - `Rule 16.7 >>> <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_16_07.c>`_ >>> - Required >>> - A switch-expression shall not have essentially Boolean type >>> - >>> >>> + * - `Rule 17.1 >>> <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_17_01.c>`_ >>> + - Required >>> + - The features of <stdarg.h> shall not be used >>> + - >> >> Did we really accept this without any constraint (warranting mentioning >> here)? > > We agreed that in certain situations stdarg.h is OK to use and in those > cases we would add a deviation. Would you like me to add something to > that effect here? I could do that but it would sound a bit vague. Also > if we want to specify a project-wide deviation it would be better > documented in docs/misra/deviations.rst. I would leave Rule 17.1 without > a note.
I can see your point, and I don't have a good suggestion on possible text. Still I wouldn't feel well ack-ing this in its present shape. >>> @@ -478,12 +490,24 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change. >>> have an explicit return statement with an expression >>> - >>> >>> + * - `Rule 17.5 >>> <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_17_05.c>`_ >>> + - Advisory >>> + - The function argument corresponding to a parameter declared to >>> + have an array type shall have an appropriate number of elements >>> + - >>> + >>> * - `Rule 17.6 >>> <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_17_06.c>`_ >>> - Mandatory >>> - The declaration of an array parameter shall not contain the >>> static keyword between the [ ] >>> - >>> >>> + * - `Rule 17.7 >>> <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_17_07.c>`_ >>> + - Required >>> + - The value returned by a function having non-void return type >>> + shall be used >>> + - >> >> Same question here. > > Here I was also thinking it might be good to add a comment. Maybe we could > add: > > - Please beware that this rule has many violations in the Xen > codebase today, and its adoption is aspirational. However, when > submitting new patches please try to decrease the number of > violations when possible. Yea, I think this would be good to add. Jan
