Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] automation/eclair: add deviation for certain backwards goto

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Nicola,

On 07/11/2023 10:33, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> As explained in the deviation record, code constructs such as
> "goto retry" and "goto again" are sometimes the best balance between
> code complexity and the understandability of the control flow
> by developers; as such, these construct are allowed to deviate
> from Rule 15.2.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl | 10 ++++++++++
>   docs/misra/deviations.rst                        | 10 ++++++++++
>   2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl 
> b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
> index fa56e5c00a27..8b1f622f8f82 100644
> --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
> +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
> @@ -270,6 +270,16 @@ statements are deliberate"
>   -config=MC3R1.R14.3,statements={deliberate , "wrapped(any(),node(if_stmt))" }
>   -doc_end
>   
> +#
> +# Series 15
> +#
> +
> +-doc_begin="The additional complexity introduced in the code by using control 
> flow structures other than backwards goto-s
> +were deemed not to justify the possible prevention of developer confusion, 
> given the very torough review process estabilished
Typoes: s/torough/thorough/ s/estabilished/established/

> +in the community."
> +-config=MC3R1.R15.2,reports+={deliberate, "any_area(any_loc(text(^.*goto 
> (again|retry).*$)))"}
> +-doc_end
> +
>   #
>   # Series 20.
>   #
> diff --git a/docs/misra/deviations.rst b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
> index 8511a189253b..7d1e1f0d09b3 100644
> --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst
> +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
> @@ -208,6 +208,16 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules:
>          statements are deliberate.
>        - Project-wide deviation; tagged as `disapplied` for ECLAIR.
>   
> +   * - R15.2
> +     - The possible prevention of developer confusion as a result of using
> +       control flow structures other than backwards goto-s in some instances 
> was
> +       deemed not strong enough to justify the additional complexity introduced
> +       in the code. Such instances are the uses of the following labels:
> +
> +       - again
> +       - retry
Have you investigated the possibility to use SAF-X in the code? If so, 
what's the problem to use them?
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall