Re: [XEN PATCH v4 1/2] automation/eclair: make the docs for MISRA C:2012 Dir 4.1 visible to ECLAIR

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.11.2023 09:45, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > On 2023-11-15 12:22, Julien Grall wrote:
> >> But I noticed you were using gcc-12 and originally thought it was a 
> >> mistake until I saw the second use.
> >>
> >> The advantage of a variable CC (and CXX) is you can add a comment on 
> >> top why you are specifically requestion gcc-12? IOW, why is gcc not 
> >> fine?
> >>
> > 
> > The assumptions in C-language-toolchain.rst (which are reflected in the 
> > analysis config) are using gcc-12 explicitly; that's just easier from a 
> > certification perspective to have a fixed version.
> 
> I'm wondering: Upstream Xen isn't going to undergo any certification
> effort, aiui. Downstreams who want to do so may have good reasons to
> choose a specific compiler version, which may well not be gcc12. How
> are we meaning to deal with that?

I think the most important part is to detail all our dependencies on the
compiler and compiler's specific behaviors. If we do that, taking gcc12
as an example, then any downstream can look at C-language-toolchain.rst
and see if there are any differences or any gaps in their compiler of
choice compared to the reference (gcc12).