On 18/12/23 08:42, Jan Beulich wrote:
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.
I'll send a v3 to include Stefano's observations and an
explicit bullet point for pseudo-keyword fallthrough.
--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.
Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)
