Re: [PATCH 0/9] MISRA C 2012 8.1 rule fixes

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 22.06.2022 15:55, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> Hi Jan,
> 
>> On 22 Jun 2022, at 14:01, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 22.06.2022 14:55, Michal Orzel wrote:
>>> On 22.06.2022 12:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 20.06.2022 09:02, Michal Orzel wrote:
>>>>> This series fixes all the findings for MISRA C 2012 8.1 rule, reported by
>>>>> cppcheck 2.7 with misra addon, for Arm (arm32/arm64 - target 
>>>>> allyesconfig).
>>>>> Fixing this rule comes down to replacing implicit 'unsigned' with explicit
>>>>> 'unsigned int' type as there are no other violations being part of that 
>>>>> rule
>>>>> in the Xen codebase.
>>>>
>>>> I'm puzzled, I have to admit. While I agree with all the examples in the
>>>> doc, I notice that there's no instance of "signed" or "unsigned" there.
>>>> Which matches my understanding that "unsigned" and "signed" on their own
>>>> (just like "long") are proper types, and hence the omission of "int"
>>>> there is not an "omission of an explicit type".
>>>>
>>> Cppcheck was choosed as a tool for MISRA checking and it is considering it 
>>> as a violation.
>>
>> Which by no means indicates that the tool pointing out something as a
>> violation actually is one.
>>
>>> It treats unsigned as an implicit type. You can see this flag in cppcheck 
>>> source code:
>>>
>>> "fIsImplicitInt          = (1U << 31),   // Is "int" token implicitly 
>>> added?"
>>
>> Neither the name of the variable nor the comment clarify that this is about
>> the specific case of "unsigned". As said there's also the fact that they
>> don't appear to point out the lack of "int" when seeing plain "long" (or
>> "long long"). I fully agree that "extern x;" or "const y;" lack explicit
>> "int".
> 
> I am a bit puzzled here trying to understand what you actually want here.
> 
> Do you suggest the change is ok but you are not ok with the fact that is 
> flagged
> as MISRA fix even though cppcheck is saying otherwise ?

First of all I'd like to understand whether what we're talking about here
are actually violations (and if so, why that is). Further actions / requests
depend on the answer.

Jan