Re: [XEN PATCH] xen: Add SAF deviations for MISRA C:2012 Rule 7.1

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

On 11/10/2023 11:53, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> > > > Luca answered to a similar, more generic, question a few days ago about
> > > > Coverity: https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=169657904027210
> > > Interesting.
> > > > So even if we get cppcheck to work like that, we would lose Coverity
> > > > support.
> > > I think my suggestion was probably misunderstood. So let me clarify it. To 
> > > cover multi-line, we could write the following in Xen:
> > > /* cppcheck tag next-3-lines */
> > > line 1
> > > line 2
> > > line 3
> > > AFAIU Eclair supports multi-line, so the tag would be transformed to there 
> > > internal solution. For CPPCheck, this could be transformed to:
> > > /* cppcheck tag next-3 lines */
> > > line 1 /* generated cppcheck tag */
> > > line 2 /* generated cppcheck tag */
> > > line 3 /* generated cppcheck tag */
> > > Now, I understand that coverity doesn't support any of the two format. So the 
> > > only solution would be to add the comment before each line which would impact 
> > > the line numbers. This is not great, but I think this is acceptable as the 
> > > context would likely help to find where this is coming from.
> > Just to clarify, here I meant that for coverity, a script before the scan could 
> > convert to the multi-line version. So the line change only impact Coverity.
> Hi Julien,
>
> We’ve tried to avoid that because when the tool insert lines, the resultant 
> report would give wrong lines numbers if any violation is reported after the
> insertion points. So there will be a mismatch between the codebase and the 
> report findings from some point on in the file.
I know. Stefano already pointed that out. But as I wrote, I don't think 
this is a big problem as it only affecte one tool (Coverity) and one 
would still be able to find the exact place based on the context.
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall