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

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 07.12.2023 03:42, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> 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)?
> 
> We agreed that in certain situations stdarg.h is OK to use and in those
> cases we would add a deviation. Would you like me to add something to
> that effect here? I could do that but it would sound a bit vague.  Also
> if we want to specify a project-wide deviation it would be better
> documented in docs/misra/deviations.rst. I would leave Rule 17.1 without
> a note.

I can see your point, and I don't have a good suggestion on possible text.
Still I wouldn't feel well ack-ing this in its present shape.

>>> @@ -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.
> 
> Here I was also thinking it might be good to add a comment. Maybe we could
> add:
> 
>      - Please beware that this rule has many violations in the Xen
>        codebase today, and its adoption is aspirational. However, when
>        submitting new patches please try to decrease the number of
>        violations when possible.

Yea, I think this would be good to add.

Jan