On 24/06/2022 12:40, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
Hi Julien,
Hi Bertrand,
On 24 Jun 2022, at 12:20, Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org> wrote:
Hi Luca,
On 24/06/2022 11:53, Luca Fancellu wrote:
Add instructions on how to build cppcheck, the version currently used
and an example to use the cppcheck integration to run the analysis on
the Xen codebase
Signed-off-by: Luca Fancellu <luca.fance...@arm.com>
---
docs/misra/cppcheck.txt | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 66 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 docs/misra/cppcheck.txt
diff --git a/docs/misra/cppcheck.txt b/docs/misra/cppcheck.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..4df0488794aa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/misra/cppcheck.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+Cppcheck for Xen static and MISRA analysis
+==========================================
+
+Xen can be analysed for both static analysis problems and MISRA violation using
+cppcheck, the open source tool allows the creation of a report with all the
+findings. Xen has introduced the support in the Makefile so it's very easy to
+use and in this document we can see how.
+
+First recommendation is to use exactly the same version in this page and
provide
+the same option to the build system, so that every Xen developer can reproduce
+the same findings.
I am not sure I agree. I think it is good that each developper use their own
version (so long it is supported), so they may be able to find issues that may
not appear with 2.7.
Right now the reality is not that great:
- 2.8 version of cppcheck has bugs and Misra checking is not working
Can you be more specifics for "bugs". Is it Xen specific?
Also, what do you mean by MISRA checking is not working? Is this a
regression or intentional?
- older versions of cppcheck are generating wrong html or xml files
That's fine to say we don't support cppcheck < 2.7 (we do that also for
the compiler).
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
