On 15.12.2023 10:26, Federico Serafini wrote:
> --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
> +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
> @@ -327,6 +327,34 @@ therefore have the same behavior of a boolean"
> -config=MC3R1.R14.4,etypes+={deliberate,
> "stmt(child(cond,child(expr,ref(^<?domain>?::is_dying$))))","src_type(enum)"}
> -doc_end
>
> +#
> +# Series 16.
> +#
> +
> +-doc_begin="Switch clauses ending with continue, goto, return statements are
> +safe."
> +-config=MC3R1.R16.3,terminals+={safe,
> "node(continue_stmt||goto_stmt||return_stmt)"}
> +-doc_end
> +
> +-doc_begin="Switch clauses ending with a call to a function that does not
> give
> +the control back are safe."
> +-config=MC3R1.R16.3,terminals+={safe, "call(property(noreturn))"}
> +-doc_end
> +
> +-doc_begin="Switch clauses ending with pseudo-keyword \"fallthrough\" are
> +safe."
> +-config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe,
> "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(/fallthrough;/))))"}
> +-doc_end
> +
> +-doc_begin="Switch clauses ending with failure method \"BUG()\" are safe."
> +-config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe,
> "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(/BUG\\(\\);/))))"}
> +-doc_end
> +
> +-doc_begin="Switch clauses not ending with the break statement are safe if an
> +explicit comment indicating the fallthrough intention is present."
> +-config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe,
> "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(^(?s).*/\\* [fF]all ?through.?
> \\*/.*$,0..1))))"}
> +-doc_end
> +
> #
> # Series 20.
> #
> --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst
> +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
> @@ -276,6 +276,34 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules:
> therefore have the same behavior of a boolean.
> - Project-wide deviation; tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR.
>
> + * - R16.3
> + - Switch clauses ending with continue, goto, return statements are safe.
> + - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
> +
> + * - R16.3
> + - Switch clauses ending with a call to a function that does not give
> + the control back are safe.
> + - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
> +
> + * - R16.3
> + - Switch clauses ending with failure method \"BUG()\" are safe.
> + - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
> +
> + * - R16.3
> + - Existing switch clauses not ending with the break statement are safe
> if
> + an explicit comment indicating the fallthrough intention is present.
> + However, the use of such comments in new code is deprecated:
> + pseudo-keyword "fallthrough" shall be used.
> + - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. The accepted comments are:
> + - /\* fall through \*/
> + - /\* fall through. \*/
> + - /\* fallthrough \*/
> + - /\* fallthrough. \*/
> + - /\* Fall through \*/
> + - /\* Fall through. \*/
> + - /\* Fallthrough \*/
> + - /\* Fallthrough. \*/
I was puzzled by there being 4 bullet points here, but 5 additions to the
other file. I don't think the wording here is sufficiently unambiguous towards
the use of the pseudo-keyword. If that's to remain a single bullet point, imo
the pseudo-keyword needs mentioning first, and only the talk should be about
comments as an alternative.
Jan
