Re: [PATCH] docs/misra: add R17.2 and R18.2

[Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2024-09-17 08:13, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> > On 17 Sep 2024, at 01:02, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> 
> > wrote:
> > The Xen community is already informally following both rules. Let's 
> > make
> > it explicit. Both rules have zero violations, only cautions. While we
> > want to go down to zero cautions in time, adding both rules to 
> > rules.rst
> > enables us to immediately make both rules gating in the ECLAIR job 
> > part
> > of gitlab-ci.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > diff --git a/docs/misra/rules.rst b/docs/misra/rules.rst
> > index e99cb81089..9acd92cf78 100644
> > --- a/docs/misra/rules.rst
> > +++ b/docs/misra/rules.rst
> > @@ -561,6 +561,12 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change.
> >      - The features of <stdarg.h> shall not be used
> >      -
> >
> > +   * - `Rule 17.2 
> > <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_17_02.c>`_
> > +     - Required
> > +     - Functions shall not call themselves, either directly or 
> > indirectly
> > +     - Limited forms of recursion are allowed if the recursion is 
> > bound
> > +       (there is an upper limit and the upper limit is enforced)
> NIT: . missing at the end.
>
>
> Should we add a comment to say that the bounding needs to be explained 
> in a comment or in a deviation ?
> > +
> >    * - `Rule 17.3 
> > <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_17_03.c>`_
> >      - Mandatory
> >      - A function shall not be declared implicitly
> > @@ -593,6 +599,12 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change.
> >        submitting new patches please try to decrease the number of
> >        violations when possible.
> >
> > +   * - `Rule 18.1 
> > <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_18_01.c>`_
> > +     - Required
> > +     - A pointer resulting from arithmetic on a pointer operand shall
> > +       address an element of the same array as that pointer operand
> NIT: . missing at the end.
>
> More than that i do not find the sentence quite clear.
> How about: Pointer arithmetic on an array should only address elements 
> in the given array.
> There might a better way to state that in english.
> Or is this the "extract" from the misra rule directly ?
It is the full rule headline, similar to all other entries in the table.

> Cheers
> Bertrand
>
> > +     -
> > +
> >    * - `Rule 18.2 
> > <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_18_02.c>`_
> >      - Required
> >      - Subtraction between pointers shall only be applied to pointers
--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)