Re: [PATCH] docs/misra: rules for mass adoption

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 23 May 2024, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 23.05.2024 03:26, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > @@ -725,12 +787,25 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change.
> >       - The Standard Library function system of <stdlib.h> shall not be used
> >       -
> >  
> > +   * - `Rule 22.1 
> > <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_22_01.c>`_
> > +     - Required
> > +     - All resources obtained dynamically by means of Standard Library
> > +       functions shall be explicitly released
> > +     -
> > +     - Xen doesn't provide, use, or link against a Standard Library 
> > [#xen-stdlib]_
> 
> The empty sub-bullet-point looks stray here.

Good catch, thanks!


> > @@ -748,6 +823,31 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change.
> >         stream has been closed
> >       -
> >  
> > +   * - `Rule 22.7 
> > <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_22_07.c>`_
> > +     - Required
> > +     - The macro EOF shall only be compared with the unmodified return
> > +       value from any Standard Library function capable of returning EOF
> > +     - Xen doesn't provide, use, or link against a Standard Library 
> > [#xen-stdlib]_
> 
> Shouldn't this remark also be replicated ...
> 
> > +   * - `Rule 22.8 
> > <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_22_08.c>`_
> > +     - Required
> > +     - The value of errno shall be set to zero prior to a call to an
> > +       errno-setting-function
> > +     -
> > +
> > +   * - `Rule 22.9 
> > <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_22_09.c>`_
> > +     - Required
> > +     - The value of errno shall be tested against zero after calling an
> > +       errno-setting-function
> > +     -
> > +
> > +   * - `Rule 22.10 
> > <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_22_10.c>`_
> > +     - Required
> > +     - The value of errno shall only be tested when the last function to
> > +       be called was an errno-setting-function
> > +     -
> 
> ... for all three of these, seeing that errno is something a (standard) 
> library
> would provide? Or alternatively should remarks here say that we simply have no
> errno?

I'll replicate the full message