[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [XEN PATCH] xen/compiler: deviate the inline macro for MISRA C Rule 20.4
On 11.03.2024 16:48, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > On 2024-03-11 08:32, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 08.03.2024 09:10, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>> --- a/docs/misra/safe.json >>> +++ b/docs/misra/safe.json >>> @@ -28,6 +28,14 @@ >>> }, >>> { >>> "id": "SAF-3-safe", >>> + "analyser": { >>> + "eclair": "MC3R1.R20.4" >>> + }, >>> + "name": "MC3R1.R20.4: allow the augmentation of the >>> inline keyword in some build configurations", >>> + "text": "The definition of this macro named inline allows >>> further checking in some build configurations that certain symbols end >>> up in the right sections." >>> + }, >> >> With this wording the ID isn't going to be re-usable anywhere else. >> Even >> if the exact same reasoning would apply. >> > > What about > > "name": "MC3R1.R20.4: allow the definition of a macro with the same name > as a keyword in some special cases" > > and > > "text": "The definition of a macro with the same name as a keyword can > be useful in certain configurations to improve the guarantees that can > be provided by Xen. See docs/misra/deviations.rst for a precise > rationale for all such cases. > > and then.. > >>> + { >>> + "id": "SAF-4-safe", >>> "analyser": {}, >>> "name": "Sentinel", >>> "text": "Next ID to be used" >>> diff --git a/xen/include/xen/compiler.h b/xen/include/xen/compiler.h >>> index 16d554f2a593..e3d9f9fb8e4b 100644 >>> --- a/xen/include/xen/compiler.h >>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/compiler.h >>> @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ >>> * inline functions not expanded inline get placed in .init.text. >>> */ >>> #include <xen/init.h> >>> +/* SAF-3-safe MISRA C Rule 20.4: define the inline macro to perform >>> checks */ >>> #define inline inline __init >>> #endif >> >> I don't think the definition is "to perform checks"; it's rather to >> make >> sure checking elsewhere wouldn't (seemingly) randomly fail. 'Override >> "inline" for section contents checks to pass when the compiler chooses >> not to inline a particular function' perhaps? Albeit that's getting >> long-ish, I fear. > > put this message in deviations.rst > > is this proposal more appealing? I think so, yes. Jan
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |