On 28.02.2024 09:53, Federico Serafini wrote:
> --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
> +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
Comments below apply similarly to text added to this file.
> --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst
> +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
> @@ -291,7 +291,14 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules:
> - Project-wide deviation; tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR.
>
> * - R16.3
> - - Switch clauses ending with continue, goto, return statements are safe.
> + - Switch clauses ending with an unconditional flow control statement
> + (i.e., continue, goto, or return) are safe.
> + - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
With this edit (unmentioned in the description, btw) ...
> + * - R16.3
> + - Switch clauses ending with an if-else statement are safe if both
> + branches consist of a flow control statement (i.e., continue, break,
> + goto, return).
... why is it not also "ending with" here?
Also what about either situation ending with a call to a noreturn function?
> @@ -307,6 +314,16 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules:
> - Switch clauses ending with failure method \"BUG()\" are safe.
> - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
>
> + * - R16.3
> + - On X86, switch clauses ending generating an exception through
> + \"generate_exception()\" are safe.
> + - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
This macro is limited to the emulator, so shouldn't be deviated globally.
Furthermore - why does the special case need mentioning here? Shouldn't
it be the underlying pattern which is deviated (along the lines of the
earlier ones):
if ( true )
{
...
goto ...; /* Or break / continue / return */
}
> + * - R16.3
> + - Switch clauses ending generating a parse error through
> + \"PARSE_ERR_RET()\" are safe.
> + - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
Again this isn't a global scope macro, so shouldn't be deviated globally.
Plus it ends in "return", so ought to be covered by the earlier clause.
The fact that the return is in a body of do {} while(0) shouldn't matter
at all - that's purely syntactic sugar.
Jan
