On 31.07.2025 18:48, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote: > > > On 7/31/25 10:20, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 30.07.2025 23:47, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote: >>> --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst >>> +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst >>> @@ -342,6 +342,12 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules: >>> semantics that do not lead to unexpected behaviour. >>> - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. >>> >>> + * - R11.1 >>> + - The conversion from 'void noreturn (*)(void *)' to 'void (*)(void >>> *)' >>> + is safe because the semantics of the 'noreturn' attribute do not >>> alter >>> + the calling convention or behavior of the resulting code. >>> + - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. >> >> As before, imo such a deviation should be generic, i.e. here independent >> of what parameters a function takes. If that can't be easily expressed >> to Eclair, then that wants stating as a justification for the >> deviations.ecl change to not fully cover the deviation we put in place. >> Having the textual deviation generic means later possible needs can be >> easily addressed by just a deviations.ecl change, without any adjustment >> to the deviations themselves. >> >> Jan > > Hi, Jan > > Currently Eclair checks exact pointer type 'void (*)(void *)', as > described in the configuration: > > to(type(pointer(inner(return(builtin(void))&&all_param(1, > pointer(builtin(void))))))) > > Nicola wrote: "then if it needs to be extended when more cases emerge I > can do that". > > So, for clarification. > > 1. In the file "deviations.ecl" I leave exist description and config: > "The conversion from 'void noreturn (*)(void *)' to 'void (*)(void *)' > is safe because the semantics of the 'noreturn' attribute do not alter > the calling convention or behavior of the resulting code." > > 2. In the file "deviations.rst" I change the description to: > "The conversion from `void noreturn (*)(...)` to `void (*)(...)` > is safe because the semantics of the 'noreturn' attribute do not alter > the calling convention or behavior of the resulting code, parameter > handling remain consistent." > > 3. In the file "rules.rst" I change the description to: > "Conversions from 'void noreturn (*)(...)' to 'void (*)(...)' are > permitted." > > It means that only "deviations.ecl" needs to be updated if a new > deviation needs to be addressed. > > > Is it OK?
Yes, with the patch description also suitably adjusted. Jan
