[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: X86: MISRA C:2012 Rule 5.6
On 14/12/23 09:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.12.2023 12:44, Federico Serafini wrote:
I have another question regarding Rule 5.6 ("A `typedef' name shall be
a unique identifier"), this time for X86:
the violations left [1] involve guest_intpte_t, guest_l1e_t and
guest_l2e_t, which seem to be deliberately defined differently depending
on the number of guest paging levels.
I would like to propose a deviation for these types, do you agree?
Yes. In fact I think we said so already when discussing this rule. The
whole rebuild-same-file-for-multiple-purposes can hardly work without
something along the lines of multiple ways of defining the same macros
and/or typedefs for each of the instances.
Thanks for the feedback.
--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.
Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)
|
