Re: [XEN PATCH v2] docs/misra: document the C dialect and translation toolchain assumptions.

[Roberto Bagnara <roberto.bagnara@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 21/06/23 12:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.06.2023 14:10, Roberto Bagnara wrote:
> > +   * - static function is used in an inline function with external linkage
> > +     - ARM64, X86_64
> > +     - Non-documented GCC extension. An inline function with external linkage
> > +       can be inlined everywhere. If that calls a static functions, which is
> > +       not available everywhere, it is a constraint violation according to
> > +       C99 6.7.4p3: "An inline definition of a function with external linkage
> > +       shall not contain a definition of a modifiable object with static
> > +       storage duration, and shall not contain a reference to an identifier
> > +       with internal linkage."  A standard-compliant C compiler ought
> > +       to diagnose all constraint violations: when it does not, as is the
> > +       case for GCC, the behavior is implicitly undefined.
> With _spin_lock_cb() taken care of, do we have any left? Or else can this
> be dropped?
Dropped both from the document and the tool configuration.

   Roberto