On 24/04/24 10:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 24.04.2024 10:25, Federico Serafini wrote:
Update ECLAIR configuration to take into account the deviations
agreed during MISRA meetings for Rule 16.4.
Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.seraf...@bugseng.com>
---
automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl | 8 ++++++++
docs/misra/deviations.rst | 13 +++++++++++++
2 files changed, 21 insertions(+)
So what has changed here from v1? It looks all the same to me, with it still
remaining unclear what exactly ...
--- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst
+++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
@@ -334,6 +334,19 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules:
- /\* Fallthrough \*/
- /\* Fallthrough. \*/
+ * - R16.4
+ - Switch statements having a controlling expression of enum type
+ deliberately do not have a default case: gcc -Wall enables -Wswitch
+ which warns (and breaks the build as we use -Werror) if one of the enum
+ labels is missing from the switch.
+ - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R16.4
+ - A switch statement with a single switch clause and no default label may
+ be used in place of an equivalent if statement if it is considered to
+ improve readability.
+ - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR.
+
* - R16.6
- A switch statement with a single switch clause and no default label may
be used in place of an equivalent if statement if it is considered to
... a "switch clause" is.
I would define a switch clause as:
"the non-empy list of statements which follows a non-empty list of
case/default labels".
If you agree, I will place it near the occurrences of the term
"switch clause".
--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.
Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)
