On 08/01/24 15:44, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.01.2024 15:01, Federico Serafini wrote:
Additionally, looking at violations of 16.3 on X86 [1],
I think we should also consider generate_exception(),
ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() and PARSE_ERR_RET() as allowed terminals
for a switch-clause, do you agree?
On 08.01.2024 15:01, Federico Serafini wrote:
> Additionally, looking at violations of 16.3 on X86 [1],
> I think we should also consider generate_exception(),
> ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() and PARSE_ERR_RET() as allowed terminals
> for a switch-clause, do you agree?
No, and iirc this was discussed
On 08/01/24 12:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.01.2024 12:16, Federico Serafini wrote:
On 08/01/24 09:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.01.2024 17:19, Federico Serafini wrote:
Hello everyone,
On 21/12/23 13:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.12.2023 13:01, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 2023-12-21
On 08.01.2024 12:16, Federico Serafini wrote:
> On 08/01/24 09:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 05.01.2024 17:19, Federico Serafini wrote:
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> On 21/12/23 13:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.12.2023 13:01, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 2023-12-21 12:03,
On 08/01/24 09:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.01.2024 17:19, Federico Serafini wrote:
Hello everyone,
On 21/12/23 13:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.12.2023 13:01, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 2023-12-21 12:03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 21/12/2023 10:58 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
On
On 05.01.2024 23:48, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2024, Federico Serafini wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> On 21/12/23 13:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 21.12.2023 13:01, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 2023-12-21 12:03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 21/12/2023 10:58
On 05.01.2024 17:19, Federico Serafini wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> On 21/12/23 13:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 21.12.2023 13:01, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> On 2023-12-21 12:03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 21/12/2023 10:58 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 21.12.2023 11:53,
On Fri, 5 Jan 2024, Federico Serafini wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> On 21/12/23 13:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 21.12.2023 13:01, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > > Hi Andrew,
> > >
> > > On 2023-12-21 12:03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > > On 21/12/2023 10:58 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > On
Hello everyone,
On 21/12/23 13:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.12.2023 13:01, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 2023-12-21 12:03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 21/12/2023 10:58 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.12.2023 11:53, Federico Serafini wrote:
Remove declarations of __put_user_bad() and
On 21.12.2023 13:01, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 2023-12-21 12:03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 21/12/2023 10:58 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 21.12.2023 11:53, Federico Serafini wrote:
Remove declarations of __put_user_bad() and __get_user_bad()
since they have no
Hi Andrew,
On 2023-12-21 12:03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 21/12/2023 10:58 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.12.2023 11:53, Federico Serafini wrote:
Remove declarations of __put_user_bad() and __get_user_bad()
since they have no definition.
Replace their uses with a break statement to address
On 21/12/2023 10:58 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 21.12.2023 11:53, Federico Serafini wrote:
>> Remove declarations of __put_user_bad() and __get_user_bad()
>> since they have no definition.
>> Replace their uses with a break statement to address violations of
>> MISRA C:2012 Rule 16.3 ("An
On 21.12.2023 11:53, Federico Serafini wrote:
> Remove declarations of __put_user_bad() and __get_user_bad()
> since they have no definition.
> Replace their uses with a break statement to address violations of
> MISRA C:2012 Rule 16.3 ("An unconditional `break' statement shall
> terminate every
Remove declarations of __put_user_bad() and __get_user_bad()
since they have no definition.
Replace their uses with a break statement to address violations of
MISRA C:2012 Rule 16.3 ("An unconditional `break' statement shall
terminate every switch-clause").
No functional change.
Signed-off-by:
14 matches
Mail list logo
