Re: [XEN PATCH v4 1/9] automation/eclair: fix deviation of MISRA C Rule 16.3

[Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 24/07/24 11:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.07.2024 18:48, Federico Serafini wrote:
> > --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
> > +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
> > @@ -499,7 +499,7 @@ safe."
> >   -doc_end
> >   
> >   -doc_begin="Switch clauses ending with an explicit comment indicating the fallthrough intention are safe."
> > --config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe, "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(^(?s).*/\\* 
> > [fF]all ?through.? \\*/.*$,0..1))))"}
> > +-config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe, "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(^(?s).*/\\* 
> > [fF]all ?through\\.? \\*/.*$,0..2))))"}
> >   -doc_end
> >   
> >   -doc_begin="Switch statements having a controlling expression of enum type deliberately do not have a default case: gcc -Wall enables -Wswitch which warns (and breaks the build as we use -Werror) if one of the enum labels is missing from the switch."
> This patch doesn't apply. There's a somewhat similar entry, but its doc_begin
> line is sufficiently different. I have no idea what's going on here; there's
> no dependency stated anywhere.
Right, this patch depends on [1] which has not been committed yet.

[1]
https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2024-06/msg01347.html

--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.

Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)