automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl | 8 ++++++++ docs/misra/deviations.rst | 13 +++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+)
Update ECLAIR configuration to take into account the deviations
agreed during MISRA meetings for Rule 16.4.
Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@bugseng.com>
---
automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl | 8 ++++++++
docs/misra/deviations.rst | 13 +++++++++++++
2 files changed, 21 insertions(+)
diff --git a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
index d21f112a9b..f09ad71acf 100644
--- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
+++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
@@ -384,6 +384,14 @@ explicit comment indicating the fallthrough intention is present."
-config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe, "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(^(?s).*/\\* [fF]all ?through.? \\*/.*$,0..1))))"}
-doc_end
+-doc_begin="Switch statements having a controlling expression of enum type deliberately do not have a default case: gcc -Wall enables -Wswitch which warns (and breaks the build as we use -Werror) if one of the enum labels is missing from the switch."
+-config=MC3R1.R16.4,reports+={deliberate,'any_area(kind(context)&&^.* has no `default.*$&&stmt(node(switch_stmt)&&child(cond,skip(__non_syntactic_paren_stmts,type(canonical(enum_underlying_type(any())))))))'}
+-doc_end
+
+-doc_begin="A switch statement with a single switch clause and no default label may be used in place of an equivalent if statement if it is considered to improve readability."
+-config=MC3R1.R16.4,switch_clauses+={deliberate,"switch(1)&&default(0)"}
+-doc_end
+
-doc_begin="A switch statement with a single switch clause and no default label may be used in place of an equivalent if statement if it is considered to improve readability."
-config=MC3R1.R16.6,switch_clauses+={deliberate, "default(0)"}
-doc_end
diff --git a/docs/misra/deviations.rst b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
index ed0c1e8ed0..39cc321a27 100644
--- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst
+++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
@@ -334,6 +334,19 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules:
- /\* Fallthrough \*/
- /\* Fallthrough. \*/
+ * - R16.4
+ - Switch statements having a controlling expression of enum type
+ deliberately do not have a default case: gcc -Wall enables -Wswitch
+ which warns (and breaks the build as we use -Werror) if one of the enum
+ labels is missing from the switch.
+ - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R16.4
+ - A switch statement with a single switch clause and no default label may
+ be used in place of an equivalent if statement if it is considered to
+ improve readability.
+ - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR.
+
* - R16.6
- A switch statement with a single switch clause and no default label may
be used in place of an equivalent if statement if it is considered to
--
2.34.1On 24.04.2024 10:25, Federico Serafini wrote: > Update ECLAIR configuration to take into account the deviations > agreed during MISRA meetings for Rule 16.4. > > Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@bugseng.com> > --- > automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl | 8 ++++++++ > docs/misra/deviations.rst | 13 +++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+) > So what has changed here from v1? It looks all the same to me, with it still remaining unclear what exactly ... > --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst > +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst > @@ -334,6 +334,19 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules: > - /\* Fallthrough \*/ > - /\* Fallthrough. \*/ > > + * - R16.4 > + - Switch statements having a controlling expression of enum type > + deliberately do not have a default case: gcc -Wall enables -Wswitch > + which warns (and breaks the build as we use -Werror) if one of the enum > + labels is missing from the switch. > + - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR. > + > + * - R16.4 > + - A switch statement with a single switch clause and no default label may > + be used in place of an equivalent if statement if it is considered to > + improve readability. > + - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR. > + > * - R16.6 > - A switch statement with a single switch clause and no default label may > be used in place of an equivalent if statement if it is considered to ... a "switch clause" is. Jan
On 24/04/24 10:30, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 24.04.2024 10:25, Federico Serafini wrote: >> Update ECLAIR configuration to take into account the deviations >> agreed during MISRA meetings for Rule 16.4. >> >> Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@bugseng.com> >> --- >> automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl | 8 ++++++++ >> docs/misra/deviations.rst | 13 +++++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+) >> > > So what has changed here from v1? It looks all the same to me, with it still > remaining unclear what exactly ... > >> --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst >> +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst >> @@ -334,6 +334,19 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules: >> - /\* Fallthrough \*/ >> - /\* Fallthrough. \*/ >> >> + * - R16.4 >> + - Switch statements having a controlling expression of enum type >> + deliberately do not have a default case: gcc -Wall enables -Wswitch >> + which warns (and breaks the build as we use -Werror) if one of the enum >> + labels is missing from the switch. >> + - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR. >> + >> + * - R16.4 >> + - A switch statement with a single switch clause and no default label may >> + be used in place of an equivalent if statement if it is considered to >> + improve readability. >> + - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR. >> + >> * - R16.6 >> - A switch statement with a single switch clause and no default label may >> be used in place of an equivalent if statement if it is considered to > > ... a "switch clause" is. I would define a switch clause as: "the non-empy list of statements which follows a non-empty list of case/default labels". If you agree, I will place it near the occurrences of the term "switch clause". -- Federico Serafini, M.Sc. Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)
On 24.04.2024 11:00, Federico Serafini wrote: > On 24/04/24 10:30, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 24.04.2024 10:25, Federico Serafini wrote: >>> Update ECLAIR configuration to take into account the deviations >>> agreed during MISRA meetings for Rule 16.4. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@bugseng.com> >>> --- >>> automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl | 8 ++++++++ >>> docs/misra/deviations.rst | 13 +++++++++++++ >>> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+) >>> >> >> So what has changed here from v1? It looks all the same to me, with it still >> remaining unclear what exactly ... >> >>> --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst >>> +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst >>> @@ -334,6 +334,19 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules: >>> - /\* Fallthrough \*/ >>> - /\* Fallthrough. \*/ >>> >>> + * - R16.4 >>> + - Switch statements having a controlling expression of enum type >>> + deliberately do not have a default case: gcc -Wall enables -Wswitch >>> + which warns (and breaks the build as we use -Werror) if one of the enum >>> + labels is missing from the switch. >>> + - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR. >>> + >>> + * - R16.4 >>> + - A switch statement with a single switch clause and no default label may >>> + be used in place of an equivalent if statement if it is considered to >>> + improve readability. >>> + - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR. >>> + >>> * - R16.6 >>> - A switch statement with a single switch clause and no default label may >>> be used in place of an equivalent if statement if it is considered to >> >> ... a "switch clause" is. > > I would define a switch clause as: > "the non-empy list of statements which follows a non-empty list of > case/default labels". > If you agree, I will place it near the occurrences of the term > "switch clause". I'm afraid I don't (quite) agree, and I had hoped that I would have got my point across that such a definition wants to be in terms used by the C spec. "statement" is too broad here, as that in particular includes "labeled-statement" as well. Ordinary labels are (aiui) okay to have in there, so entirely excluding "labeled-statement" wouldn't be quite right either. Jan
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.