Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] xen/device_tree: fix Eclair findings for MISRA C 2012 Rule 20.7

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

On 07/02/2023 10:46, Xenia Ragiadakou wrote:
> On 2/7/23 12:39, Julien Grall wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 07/02/2023 10:23, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> > > > On 3 Feb 2023, at 19:09, Xenia Ragiadakou <burzalodowa@xxxxxxxxx> 
> > > > wrote:
> > > I’m not really a supporter of empty commit message, but it’s up to 
> > > the maintainer :)
> > +1. In this case a brief summary of the rule would be handy for those 
> > that are not well-versed with MISRA.
> > This can be dealt on commit if you propose a new commit message.
> I 'm refrained from stating the rule as is because it is strict and it 
> is not applied as is.
I am a bit confused with this statement. From misra/..., we are 
supporting rule 20.7. So why aren't applying it strictly?
And if it is not applied as-is, shouldn't we document the violation (if 
any)?
> "Add parentheses around macro parameters when the precedence and 
> associativity of the performed operators can lead to unintended order of 
> evaluation."
> Is this ok?
I am OK with this. Is there any ID from Eclair that could be used to 
track each error (and so we can confirm they have disappeared)?
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall