Re: [PATCH] docs/misra: add 14.3 and 14.4

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 30.08.2023 02:59, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> --- a/docs/misra/rules.rst
> +++ b/docs/misra/rules.rst
> @@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change.
>     * - `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
> -     -
> +     - Function pointer types shall have named parameters too.

This isn't an exception; do we really need to state such? I would have
expected something to appear here only if we intended to deviate certain
constructs.

> @@ -332,6 +332,24 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change.
>       - A loop counter shall not have essentially floating type
>       -
>  
> +   * - `Rule 14.3 
> <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_14_03.c>`_
> +     - Required
> +     - Controlling expressions shall not be invariant
> +     - Due to the extensive usage of IS_ENABLED, sizeof compile-time
> +       checks, and other constructs that are detected as errors by MISRA
> +       C scanners, managing the configuration of a MISRA C scanner for
> +       this rule would be unmanageable. Thus, this rule is adopted with
> +       a project-wide deviation on 'if' statements. The rule only
> +       applies to while, for, do ... while, ?:, and switch statements.

The sizeof() aspect mentioned particularly applies to switch() as well.
Furthermore ?: is really only shorthand for simple if(), so I don't see
treating it different from if() as helpful.

That said, I'd be a little hesitant to give an ack here anyway. If you'd
split 14.3 and 14.4, I'd be happy to ack 14.4's addition.

Jan

> +   * - `Rule 14.4 
> <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_14_04.c>`_
> +     - Required
> +     - The controlling expression of an if statement and the controlling
> +       expression of an iteration-statement shall have essentially
> +       Boolean type
> +     - Implicit conversions of integers, pointers, and chars to boolean
> +       are allowed
> +
>     * - `Rule 16.7 
> <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_16_07.c>`_
>       - Required
>       - A switch-expression shall not have essentially Boolean type