On 29/08/23 00:32, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023, Simone Ballarin wrote:
Some headers, under specific circumstances (documented in a comment at
the beginning of the file), explicitly avoid inclusion guards: the caller
is responsible for including them correctly.
These files are not supposed to comply with Directive 4.10:
"Precautions shall be taken in order to prevent the contents of a header
file being included more than once"
This patch adds a deviation for all headers that contain the following
in a comment text:
"In this case, no inclusion guards apply and the caller is responsible"
Signed-off-by: Simone Ballarin <simone.balla...@bugseng.com>
Acked-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org>
Actually one question
---
automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl | 4 ++++
docs/misra/rules.rst | 3 ++-
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
index d8170106b4..5f068377fa 100644
--- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
+++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
@@ -91,6 +91,10 @@ conform to the directive."
-config=MC3R1.D4.10,reports+={safe, "first_area(text(^/\\* Generated file, do not
edit! \\*/$, begin-3))"}
-doc_end
+-doc_begin="Some headers, under specific circumstances, explicitly avoid inclusion guards."
+-config=MC3R1.D4.10,reports+={safe, "first_area(text(^ \\* In this case, no
inclusion guards apply and the caller is responsible.*\\*/$, begin-1))"}
+-doc_end
Is this supposed to match with any files starting with "In this case,
no inclusion..." ?
We should use the format introduced by safe.json instead
I agree, I will do it in the next submission.
--
Simone Ballarin, M.Sc.
Field Application Engineer, BUGSENG (https://bugseng.com)
