docs/misra/rules.rst | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+)
From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@amd.com>
10.1 with several caveats, described in the notes.
10.3 and 10.4 as "aspirational" guidelines, as clarified in the notes.
Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@amd.com>
---
docs/misra/rules.rst | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 52 insertions(+)
diff --git a/docs/misra/rules.rst b/docs/misra/rules.rst
index 4f33ed4ba6..2f16451703 100644
--- a/docs/misra/rules.rst
+++ b/docs/misra/rules.rst
@@ -318,6 +318,58 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change.
- An element of an object shall not be initialized more than once
-
+ * - `Rule 10.1 <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_10_01.c>`_
+ - Required
+ - Operands shall not be of an inappropriate essential type
+ - The following are allowed:
+ - Value-preserving conversions of integer constants
+ - Bitwise and, or, xor, one's complement, bitwise and assignment,
+ bitwise or assignment, bitwise xor assignment (bitwise and, or, xor
+ are safe on non-negative integers; also Xen assumes two's complement
+ representation)
+ - Left shift, right shift, left shift assignment, right shift
+ assignment (see C-language-toolchain.rst for assumptions on
+ compilers' extensions)
+ - Implicit conversions to boolean for logical operators' arguments
+
+ * - `Rule 10.2 <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_10_02.c>`_
+ - Required
+ - Expressions of essentially character type shall not be used
+ inappropriately in addition and subtraction operations
+ -
+
+ * - `Rule 10.3 <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_10_03.c>`_
+ - Required
+ - The value of an expression shall not be assigned to an object
+ with a narrower essential type or of a dierent essential type
+ category
+ - Please beware that this rule has many violations in the Xen
+ codebase today, and its adoption is aspirational. However, when
+ submitting new patches please try to decrease the number of
+ violations when possible.
+
+ gcc has a helpful warning that can help you spot and remove
+ violations of this kind: conversion. For instance, you can use
+ it as follows:
+
+ cd xen; CFLAGS="-Wconversion -Wno-error=sign-conversion -Wno-error=conversion" make
+
+ * - `Rule 10.4 <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_10_04.c>`_
+ - Required
+ - Both operands of an operator in which the usual arithmetic
+ conversions are performed shall have the same essential type
+ category
+ - Please beware that this rule has many violations in the Xen
+ codebase today, and its adoption is aspirational. However, when
+ submitting new patches please try to decrease the number of
+ violations when possible.
+
+ gcc has a helpful warning that can help you spot and remove
+ violations of this kind: arith-conversion. For instance, you
+ can use it as follows:
+
+ cd xen; CFLAGS="-Warith-conversion -Wno-error=arith-conversion" make
+
* - `Rule 12.5 <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_12_05.c>`_
- Mandatory
- The sizeof operator shall not have an operand which is a function
--
2.25.1
On 24.08.2023 01:14, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > --- a/docs/misra/rules.rst > +++ b/docs/misra/rules.rst > @@ -318,6 +318,58 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change. > - An element of an object shall not be initialized more than once > - > > + * - `Rule 10.1 <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_10_01.c>`_ > + - Required > + - Operands shall not be of an inappropriate essential type > + - The following are allowed: > + - Value-preserving conversions of integer constants > + - Bitwise and, or, xor, one's complement, bitwise and assignment, > + bitwise or assignment, bitwise xor assignment (bitwise and, or, xor > + are safe on non-negative integers; also Xen assumes two's complement > + representation) > + - Left shift, right shift, left shift assignment, right shift > + assignment (see C-language-toolchain.rst for assumptions on > + compilers' extensions) Is "assumptions" the right term here? We don't just assume these are there, we actually checked their doc and behavior. Maybe simply "uses of" instead? > + - Implicit conversions to boolean for logical operators' arguments What is "logical operators" here? Perhaps this wants to be "conditionals" instead, to cover all of ?:, if(), while(), for() (did I forget any?), of which only the first is an operator? > + * - `Rule 10.3 <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_10_03.c>`_ > + - Required > + - The value of an expression shall not be assigned to an object > + with a narrower essential type or of a dierent essential type Nit: ff missing? > + category > + - Please beware that this rule has many violations in the Xen > + codebase today, and its adoption is aspirational. However, when > + submitting new patches please try to decrease the number of > + violations when possible. > + > + gcc has a helpful warning that can help you spot and remove > + violations of this kind: conversion. For instance, you can use > + it as follows: > + > + cd xen; CFLAGS="-Wconversion -Wno-error=sign-conversion -Wno-error=conversion" make Maybe slightly shorter as CFLAGS="-Wconversion -Wno-error=sign-conversion -Wno-error=conversion" make -C xen ? Jan
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 24.08.2023 01:14, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > --- a/docs/misra/rules.rst > > +++ b/docs/misra/rules.rst > > @@ -318,6 +318,58 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change. > > - An element of an object shall not be initialized more than once > > - > > > > + * - `Rule 10.1 <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_10_01.c>`_ > > + - Required > > + - Operands shall not be of an inappropriate essential type > > + - The following are allowed: > > + - Value-preserving conversions of integer constants > > + - Bitwise and, or, xor, one's complement, bitwise and assignment, > > + bitwise or assignment, bitwise xor assignment (bitwise and, or, xor > > + are safe on non-negative integers; also Xen assumes two's complement > > + representation) > > + - Left shift, right shift, left shift assignment, right shift > > + assignment (see C-language-toolchain.rst for assumptions on > > + compilers' extensions) > > Is "assumptions" the right term here? We don't just assume these are there, > we actually checked their doc and behavior. Maybe simply "uses of" instead? yes, I'll use "uses of" > > + - Implicit conversions to boolean for logical operators' arguments > > What is "logical operators" here? Perhaps this wants to be "conditionals" > instead, to cover all of ?:, if(), while(), for() (did I forget any?), of > which only the first is an operator? There are also ! || && which are the logical operators I'll write it as follows: Implicit conversions to boolean for conditionals (?: if while for) and logical operators (! || &&) > > + * - `Rule 10.3 <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_10_03.c>`_ > > + - Required > > + - The value of an expression shall not be assigned to an object > > + with a narrower essential type or of a dierent essential type > > Nit: ff missing? yep, thanks > > + category > > + - Please beware that this rule has many violations in the Xen > > + codebase today, and its adoption is aspirational. However, when > > + submitting new patches please try to decrease the number of > > + violations when possible. > > + > > + gcc has a helpful warning that can help you spot and remove > > + violations of this kind: conversion. For instance, you can use > > + it as follows: > > + > > + cd xen; CFLAGS="-Wconversion -Wno-error=sign-conversion -Wno-error=conversion" make > > Maybe slightly shorter as > > CFLAGS="-Wconversion -Wno-error=sign-conversion -Wno-error=conversion" make -C xen > > ? I'll make the change here and also in the other instance of the same
On 25/08/2023 14:40, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 24.08.2023 01:14, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> --- a/docs/misra/rules.rst >> +++ b/docs/misra/rules.rst >> @@ -318,6 +318,58 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change. >> - An element of an object shall not be initialized more than once >> - >> >> + * - `Rule 10.1 <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_10_01.c>`_ >> + - Required >> + - Operands shall not be of an inappropriate essential type >> + - The following are allowed: >> + - Value-preserving conversions of integer constants >> + - Bitwise and, or, xor, one's complement, bitwise and assignment, >> + bitwise or assignment, bitwise xor assignment (bitwise and, or, xor >> + are safe on non-negative integers; also Xen assumes two's complement >> + representation) >> + - Left shift, right shift, left shift assignment, right shift >> + assignment (see C-language-toolchain.rst for assumptions on >> + compilers' extensions) > > Is "assumptions" the right term here? We don't just assume these are there, > we actually checked their doc and behavior. Maybe simply "uses of" instead? > >> + - Implicit conversions to boolean for logical operators' arguments > > What is "logical operators" here? Perhaps this wants to be "conditionals" > instead, to cover all of ?:, if(), while(), for() (did I forget any?), of > which only the first is an operator? > >> + * - `Rule 10.3 <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_10_03.c>`_ >> + - Required >> + - The value of an expression shall not be assigned to an object >> + with a narrower essential type or of a dierent essential type > > Nit: ff missing? > >> + category >> + - Please beware that this rule has many violations in the Xen >> + codebase today, and its adoption is aspirational. However, when >> + submitting new patches please try to decrease the number of >> + violations when possible. >> + >> + gcc has a helpful warning that can help you spot and remove >> + violations of this kind: conversion. For instance, you can use >> + it as follows: >> + >> + cd xen; CFLAGS="-Wconversion -Wno-error=sign-conversion -Wno-error=conversion" make > > Maybe slightly shorter as > > CFLAGS="-Wconversion -Wno-error=sign-conversion -Wno-error=conversion" make -C xen > > ? +1. It also means that the command can be called multiple time without having to type 'cd -' between. Cheers, -- Julien Grall
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.