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

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 23.04.2025 22:41, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> 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.

Isn't it a matter of producing a suitable regex? If not, I don't think we
should put in too broad an Eclair rule, but then rather resort to e.g.
SAF comments.

Jan