On 13.11.2024 11:48, Alessandro Zucchelli wrote: > At this link you can see all the violations of Rule 5.2: > > https://saas.eclairit.com:3787/fs/var/local/eclair/xen-project.ecdf/xen-project/people/bugseng/xen/ECLAIR_normal/40_characters/X86_64/8143097084/PROJECT.ecd;/by_service/MC3R1.R5.2.html
Thank you. From a cursory look these all appear to be a result of the 40 chars limit we put in place (quite arbitrarily). That's not mentioned at all ... > By deviating the two macros CHECK_NAME_ and DEFINE_COMPAT_HANDLE all the > violations are addressed. > > On 2024-11-13 11:31, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 13.11.2024 09:41, Alessandro Zucchelli wrote: >>> This addresses violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 5.2 which states as >>> following: Identifiers declared in the same scope and name space shall >>> be distinct. >>> >>> This deviation addresses violations of Rule 5.2 arising from >>> identifiers generated through token pasting macros CHECK_NAME_ and >>> DEFINE_COMPAT_HANDLE. ... in the description. Together with the 5.4 patch having the same lack of context, I wonder whether we shouldn't simply up that limit. Or else, as suggested there, to instead exclude such derived identifiers. After all the derived ones will be distinct as long as what they're derived from is distinct. Finally - please don't top-post. Jan >> For each of the two, can you provide an example of where collisions >> result? At least for the latter I can't even see how that would >> work without the compiler complaining (i.e. the build breaking). >> >> Jan >
