Re: [PATCH] docs/misra/rules.rst: add more rules

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 06.12.2023 04:02, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> --- a/docs/misra/rules.rst
> +++ b/docs/misra/rules.rst
> @@ -462,11 +462,23 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change.
>  
>         while(0) and while(1) and alike are allowed.
>  
> +   * - `Rule 16.3 
> <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_16_03.c>`_
> +     - Required
> +     - An unconditional break statement shall terminate every
> +       switch-clause
> +     - In addition to break, also other flow control statements such as
> +       continue, return, goto are allowed.
> +
>     * - `Rule 16.7 
> <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_16_07.c>`_
>       - Required
>       - A switch-expression shall not have essentially Boolean type
>       -
>  
> +   * - `Rule 17.1 
> <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_17_01.c>`_
> +     - Required
> +     - The features of <stdarg.h> shall not be used
> +     -

Did we really accept this without any constraint (warranting mentioning
here)?

> @@ -478,12 +490,24 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change.
>         have an explicit return statement with an expression
>       -
>  
> +   * - `Rule 17.5 
> <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_17_05.c>`_
> +     - Advisory
> +     - The function argument corresponding to a parameter declared to
> +       have an array type shall have an appropriate number of elements
> +     -
> +
>     * - `Rule 17.6 
> <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_17_06.c>`_
>       - Mandatory
>       - The declaration of an array parameter shall not contain the
>         static keyword between the [ ]
>       -
>  
> +   * - `Rule 17.7 
> <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_17_07.c>`_
> +     - Required
> +     - The value returned by a function having non-void return type
> +       shall be used
> +     -

Same question here.

If the other additions were separate, I probably would have ack-ed them
right away.

Jan