Re: [PATCH] docs/misra: add Rules 8.2, 8.3, 8.14

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 21.06.2023 23:38, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 21.06.2023 03:26, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> --- a/docs/misra/rules.rst
>>> +++ b/docs/misra/rules.rst
>>> @@ -213,6 +213,17 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change.
>>>       - Types shall be explicitly specified
>>>       -
>>>  
>>> +   * - `Rule 8.2 
>>> <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_08_02.c>`_
>>> +     - Required
>>> +     - Function types shall be in prototype form with named parameters
>>> +     -
>>> +
>>> +   * - `Rule 8.3 
>>> <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_08_03.c>`_
>>> +     - Required
>>> +     - All declarations of an object or function shall use the same
>>> +       names and type qualifiers
>>> +     -
>>
>> I think we want to deal with uses of const when not qualifying a pointed-to
>> type: One approach is to simply say we don't use const like this (and the
>> few uses there are should then go away). The other, if we deem this a
>> valuable feature, would be to make a project-wide exception for this case,
>> as having such const in declarations is meaningless and hence at the risk
>> of being confusing or hampering readability.
> 
> I think they should go away (the first option you wrote).
> 
> If you are OK with it, I could add a note here, such as:
> 
> "The rule also applies to differences in const-ness."

I don't think that's necessary. A remark would be necessary if we meant to
make a particular exception. I'm not sure whether we would record the
agreed upon course of action here (i.e. as you say, drop such const).

Jan