On 19.04.2024 15:01, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > On 2024-04-19 11:21, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 19.04.2024 09:49, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>> On 2024-04-19 09:35, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 19.04.2024 09:16, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>>> The ECLAIR service STD.emptrecd is being deprecated; hence, as a >>>>> preventive >>>>> measure, STD.anonstct is used here, which for Xen's purposes has >>>>> equivalent >>>>> functionality. >>>> >>>> I'm sorry, but no, this still does not clarify things enough. It is >>>> still >>>> entirely unclear how "empty record" can reasonably be substituted by >>>> "anonymous struct". Even the expansion of the respective >>>> abbreviations >>>> continues to be just a guess. >>> >>> anonstct checks for structs with no named members, >> >> So "anonstct" != "anonymous structures". As indicated, part of the >> description wants to be de-ciphering of these acronyms, so they can >> make sense to readers. >> >> Jan >> >>> hence also empty >>> structs, but only the former is an undefined behaviour for C99. >>> > > Would this be a sufficiently clear explanation for you? > > "The ECLAIR service STD.emptrecd (which checks for empty structures) is > being deprecated; hence, as a preventive measure, STD.anonstct (which > checks for structures with no named members, an UB in C99) is used here; > the latter being a more general case than the previous one, this change > does not affect the analysis. This new service is already supported by > the current version of ECLAIR."
Yes, this is much better. Thanks. Jan
