Re: [PATCH v1] misra: add deviation of Rule 5.5

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2025, Lira, Victor M wrote:
> Continuing a discussion from before:
> 
> On 4/22/2025 11:44 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution
> > when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> > 
> > 
> > On 23.04.2025 01:43, victorm.lira@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > >          memmove.
> > >        - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR.
> > > 
> > > +   * - R5.5
> > > +     - Clashes between function-like macros and function names are
> > > +       deliberate
> > They may or may not be deliberate, depending on context. I don't think it's
> > a
> > good move to deviate this more widely than necessary. If I get the
> > expression
> > above (in deviations.ecl) right, even
> > 
> > void func1(int);
> > void func2(int);
> > 
> > #define func1() func2(0)
> > #define func2() func1(0)
> > 
> > would be deviated, which I don't think we want. Especially when, in a less
> > contrived scenario, the clash may not easily be visible.
>
> OK, I see the issue for different functions. Does it make sense to say it's
> deliberate when it's the same identifier?
>
>       void func1(int);
>       ...
>       #define func1() func1(0)
> 
> Could this be deviated?

I think it makes sense to be clear in deviations.rst and the doc text in
deviations.ecl that we are referring to the same identifier. That we can
do.

I am not sure it is possible to change the ecl rule accordingly to
narrow the check relaxation. If not possible, I'd keep it as it is in
this patch.