Re: [XEN PATCH 09/13] xen/common: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Directive 4.10

[Simone Ballarin <simone.ballarin@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 31/08/23 15:05, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 31.08.2023 14:54, Simone Ballarin wrote:
> > On 31/08/23 13:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 31.08.2023 12:08, Simone Ballarin wrote:
> > > > The danger of multi-inclusion also exists for .c files, why do you want
> > > > to avoid guards for them?
> > > Counter question: Why only add guards to some of them? (My personal
> > > answer is "Because it's extra clutter.")
> > It's not "some of them", it's exactly the ones used in an #include
> > directive, so I'm not getting your objection.
> My point is that by adding guards only for files we presently use in some
> #include directive, we set us up for introducing new violations as soon
> as another .c file becomes the subject of an #include.The more that it
> is unusual to add guards in .c files, i.e. it is to be expected that
> people wouldn't think about this extra Misra requirement.
>
> Jan
I can agree to partially adopt the directive: I will add a deviation for 
C files in rules.txt.
--
Simone Ballarin, M.Sc.

Field Application Engineer, BUGSENG (https://bugseng.com)