On 20/06/24 16:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.06.2024 16:02, Federico Serafini wrote:
--- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
+++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
@@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ safe."
-doc_end
-doc_begin="Switch clauses ending with an explicit comment indicating the fallthrough intention are safe."
--config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe, "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(^(?s).*/\\*
[fF]all ?through.? \\*/.*$,0..1))))"}
+-config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe, "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(^(?s).*/\\*
[fF]all[ -]?through.? \\*/.*$,0..2))))"}
Is is a regex, isn't it? Doesn't the period also need escaping (or enclosing
in square brackets)? (I realize it was like this before, but still.)
Yes, thanks for noticing.
--- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst
+++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
@@ -353,6 +353,10 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules:
However, the use of such comments in new code is deprecated:
the pseudo-keyword "fallthrough" shall be used.
- Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. The accepted comments are:
+ - /\* fall-through \*/
+ - /\* Fall-through. \*/
+ - /\* Fall-through \*/
+ - /\* fall-through. \*/
- /\* fall through \*/
- /\* fall through. \*/
- /\* fallthrough \*/
Nit: Can the capital-F and non-capital-f variants please be next to each other?
Ok.
--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.
Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)
