Re: [PATCH v2] docs/misra: new rules addition

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 09.06.2023 19:45, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> @@ -133,6 +146,13 @@ existing codebase are work-in-progress.
>         headers (xen/include/public/) are allowed to retain longer
>         identifiers for backward compatibility.
>  
> +   * - `Rule 6.1 
> <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_06_01.c>`_
> +     - Required
> +     - Bit-fields shall only be declared with an appropriate type
> +     - In addition to the C99 types, we also consider appropriate types:
> +       unsigned char, unsigned short, unsigned long, unsigned long long,
> +       enum.

What about their signed equivalents? I'm surprised that I found only very
few uses (in Arm insn decoding afaict), but they generally have a purpose.
Are the uses we have (and new ones which may appear) intended to become
deviations?

> @@ -143,6 +163,12 @@ existing codebase are work-in-progress.
>       - Octal constants shall not be used
>       -
>  
> +   * - `Rule 7.2 
> <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_07_02.c>`_
> +     - Required
> +     - A "u" or "U" suffix shall be applied to all integer constants
> +       that are represented in an unsigned type
> +     -

I continue to consider "represented in" problematic here without
further qualification.

> @@ -314,6 +340,11 @@ existing codebase are work-in-progress.
>         used following a subsequent call to the same function
>       -
>  
> +   * - Rule 21.21
> +     - Required
> +     - The Standard Library function system of <stdlib.h> shall not be used
> +     -

Still no "inapplicable" note (whichever way it would be worded to also
please Roberto)?

Jan