On 11.03.2024 16:48, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> On 2024-03-11 08:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 08.03.2024 09:10, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>> --- a/docs/misra/safe.json
>>> +++ b/docs/misra/safe.json
>>> @@ -28,6 +28,14 @@
>>> },
>>> {
>>> "id": "SAF-3-safe",
>>> + "analyser": {
>>> + "eclair": "MC3R1.R20.4"
>>> + },
>>> + "name": "MC3R1.R20.4: allow the augmentation of the
>>> inline keyword in some build configurations",
>>> + "text": "The definition of this macro named inline allows
>>> further checking in some build configurations that certain symbols end
>>> up in the right sections."
>>> + },
>>
>> With this wording the ID isn't going to be re-usable anywhere else.
>> Even
>> if the exact same reasoning would apply.
>>
>
> What about
>
> "name": "MC3R1.R20.4: allow the definition of a macro with the same name
> as a keyword in some special cases"
>
> and
>
> "text": "The definition of a macro with the same name as a keyword can
> be useful in certain configurations to improve the guarantees that can
> be provided by Xen. See docs/misra/deviations.rst for a precise
> rationale for all such cases.
>
> and then..
>
>>> + {
>>> + "id": "SAF-4-safe",
>>> "analyser": {},
>>> "name": "Sentinel",
>>> "text": "Next ID to be used"
>>> diff --git a/xen/include/xen/compiler.h b/xen/include/xen/compiler.h
>>> index 16d554f2a593..e3d9f9fb8e4b 100644
>>> --- a/xen/include/xen/compiler.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/compiler.h
>>> @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@
>>> * inline functions not expanded inline get placed in .init.text.
>>> */
>>> #include <xen/init.h>
>>> +/* SAF-3-safe MISRA C Rule 20.4: define the inline macro to perform
>>> checks */
>>> #define inline inline __init
>>> #endif
>>
>> I don't think the definition is "to perform checks"; it's rather to
>> make
>> sure checking elsewhere wouldn't (seemingly) randomly fail. 'Override
>> "inline" for section contents checks to pass when the compiler chooses
>> not to inline a particular function' perhaps? Albeit that's getting
>> long-ish, I fear.
>
> put this message in deviations.rst
>
> is this proposal more appealing?
I think so, yes.
Jan
