Re: [XEN PATCH v2] automation/eclair: extend existing deviations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 16.3

[Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 13/06/24 12:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 13.06.2024 11:02, Federico Serafini wrote:
> > On 13/06/24 10:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 13.06.2024 08:38, Federico Serafini wrote:
> > > > +   * - R16.3
> > > > +     - Switch clauses ending with a do-while-false which, in turn, ends with an
> > > Maybe more precisely "the body of which"?
> > Will do.
> >
> > > > +       allowed terminal statement are safe (e.g., PARSE_ERR_RET()).
> > > > +       Being ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() a construct that is effective in debug builds
> > > > +       only, it is not considered as an allowed terminal statement, despite its
> > > > +       definition.
> > > DYM despite its name? Its definition is what specifically renders it unsuitable
> > > for release builds.
> > In debug builds, ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() expands to a do-while-false
> > the body of which ends with __builtin_unreachable() which is a builtin
> > marked as "noreturn" and thus considered as one of the "allowed
> > terminal statements".
> > As a result, ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() will be considered as an
> > "allowed terminal statement" as well, which is something we want to
> > avoid.
> Hmm, then maybe add "there" at the end of the sentence, to refer back to
> "debug builds"?
Alright.

--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.

Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)