Re: [XEN PATCH] automation/eclair: update deviations and accepted guidelines

[Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 06/10/23 12:23, Simone Ballarin wrote:
> +-doc_begin="XEN only supports architectures where signed integers are
> +representend using two's complement and all the XEN developers are aware of
> +this."
> +-config=MC3R1.R10.1,etypes+={safe,
> +  "stmt(operator(and||or||xor||not||and_assign||or_assign||xor_assign))",
> +  "any()"}
> +-doc_end
> +
> +-doc_begin="See Section \"4.5 Integers\" of \"GCC_MANUAL\", where it says that
> +\"Signed `>>' acts on negative numbers by sign extension. As an extension to 
> the
> +C language, GCC does not use the latitude given in C99 and C11 only to treat
> +certain aspects of signed `<<' as undefined. However, -fsanitize=shift (and
> +-fsanitize=undefined) will diagnose such cases. They are also diagnosed where
> +constant expressions are required.\""
> +-config=MC3R1.R10.1,etypes+={safe,
> +  "stmt(operator(shl||shr||shl_assign||shr_assign))",
> +  "any()"}
> +-doc_end
These two deviations for Rule 10.1 have been already proposed by me
in the following (not committed) patch:
https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2023-10/msg00146.html

So, I would suggest dropping my patch in favor of the one
proposed by Simone.

Regards
--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.

Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)