.../eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl | 31 ++++++++++++++----- automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/tagging.ecl | 2 +- docs/misra/deviations.rst | 28 +++++++++++++++-- 3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
Update ECLAIR configuration to deviate more cases where an
unintentional fallthrough cannot happen.
Tag Rule 16.3 as clean for arm.
Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@bugseng.com>
Acked-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
---
Changes from v3:
- do not add the rule to the monitored set (it is already there).
---
Changes from v2:
- fixed grammar;
- reprhased deviations regarding do-while-false and ASSERT_UNREACHABLE().
---
.../eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl | 31 ++++++++++++++-----
automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/tagging.ecl | 2 +-
docs/misra/deviations.rst | 28 +++++++++++++++--
3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
index ae2eaf50f7..c8bff0e057 100644
--- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
+++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
@@ -380,14 +380,30 @@ therefore it is deemed better to leave such files as is."
-config=MC3R1.R16.2,reports+={deliberate, "any_area(any_loc(file(x86_emulate||x86_svm_emulate)))"}
-doc_end
--doc_begin="Switch clauses ending with continue, goto, return statements are
-safe."
--config=MC3R1.R16.3,terminals+={safe, "node(continue_stmt||goto_stmt||return_stmt)"}
+-doc_begin="Statements that change the control flow (i.e., break, continue, goto, return) and calls to functions that do not return the control back are \"allowed terminal statements\"."
+-stmt_selector+={r16_3_allowed_terminal, "node(break_stmt||continue_stmt||goto_stmt||return_stmt)||call(property(noreturn))"}
+-config=MC3R1.R16.3,terminals+={safe, "r16_3_allowed_terminal"}
+-doc_end
+
+-doc_begin="An if-else statement having both branches ending with an allowed terminal statement is itself an allowed terminal statement."
+-stmt_selector+={r16_3_if, "node(if_stmt)&&(child(then,r16_3_allowed_terminal)||child(then,any_stmt(stmt,-1,r16_3_allowed_terminal)))"}
+-stmt_selector+={r16_3_else, "node(if_stmt)&&(child(else,r16_3_allowed_terminal)||child(else,any_stmt(stmt,-1,r16_3_allowed_terminal)))"}
+-stmt_selector+={r16_3_if_else, "r16_3_if&&r16_3_else"}
+-config=MC3R1.R16.3,terminals+={safe, "r16_3_if_else"}
+-doc_end
+
+-doc_begin="An if-else statement having an always true condition and the true branch ending with an allowed terminal statement is itself an allowed terminal statement."
+-stmt_selector+={r16_3_if_true, "r16_3_if&&child(cond,definitely_in(1..))"}
+-config=MC3R1.R16.3,terminals+={safe, "r16_3_if_true"}
+-doc_end
+
+-doc_begin="A switch clause ending with a statement expression which, in turn, ends with an allowed terminal statement is safe."
+-config=MC3R1.R16.3,terminals+={safe, "node(stmt_expr)&&child(stmt,node(compound_stmt)&&any_stmt(stmt,-1,r16_3_allowed_terminal||r16_3_if_else||r16_3_if_true))"}
-doc_end
--doc_begin="Switch clauses ending with a call to a function that does not give
-the control back (i.e., a function with attribute noreturn) are safe."
--config=MC3R1.R16.3,terminals+={safe, "call(property(noreturn))"}
+-doc_begin="A switch clause ending with a do-while-false the body of which, in turn, ends with an allowed terminal statement is safe.
+An exception to that is the macro ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() which is effective in debug build only: a switch clause ending with ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() is not considered safe."
+-config=MC3R1.R16.3,terminals+={safe, "!macro(name(ASSERT_UNREACHABLE))&&node(do_stmt)&&child(cond,definitely_in(0))&&child(body,any_stmt(stmt,-1,r16_3_allowed_terminal||r16_3_if_else||r16_3_if_true))"}
-doc_end
-doc_begin="Switch clauses ending with pseudo-keyword \"fallthrough\" are
@@ -399,8 +415,7 @@ safe."
-config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe, "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(/BUG\\(\\);/))))"}
-doc_end
--doc_begin="Switch clauses not ending with the break statement are safe if an
-explicit comment indicating the fallthrough intention is present."
+-doc_begin="Switch clauses ending with an explicit comment indicating the fallthrough intention are safe."
-config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe, "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(^(?s).*/\\* [fF]all ?through.? \\*/.*$,0..1))))"}
-doc_end
diff --git a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/tagging.ecl b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/tagging.ecl
index b829655ca0..54772809ca 100644
--- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/tagging.ecl
+++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/tagging.ecl
@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ if(string_equal(target,"x86_64"),
)
if(string_equal(target,"arm64"),
- service_selector({"additional_clean_guidelines","MC3R1.R16.6||MC3R1.R2.1||MC3R1.R5.3||MC3R1.R7.3"})
+ service_selector({"additional_clean_guidelines","MC3R1.R16.3||MC3R1.R16.6||MC3R1.R2.1||MC3R1.R5.3||MC3R1.R7.3"})
)
-reports+={clean:added,"service(clean_guidelines_common||additional_clean_guidelines)"}
diff --git a/docs/misra/deviations.rst b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
index 16fc345756..b11a5623c7 100644
--- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst
+++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
@@ -330,12 +330,34 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules:
- Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR.
* - R16.3
- - Switch clauses ending with continue, goto, return statements are safe.
+ - Statements that change the control flow (i.e., break, continue, goto,
+ return) and calls to functions that do not return the control back are
+ \"allowed terminal statements\".
- Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
* - R16.3
- - Switch clauses ending with a call to a function that does not give
- the control back (i.e., a function with attribute noreturn) are safe.
+ - An if-else statement having both branches ending with one of the allowed
+ terminal statemets is itself an allowed terminal statements.
+ - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R16.3
+ - An if-else statement having an always true condition and the true
+ branch ending with an allowed terminal statement is itself an allowed
+ terminal statement.
+ - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R16.3
+ - A switch clause ending with a statement expression which, in turn, ends
+ with an allowed terminal statement (e.g., the expansion of
+ generate_exception()) is safe.
+ - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R16.3
+ - A switch clause ending with a do-while-false the body of which, in turn,
+ ends with an allowed terminal statement (e.g., PARSE_ERR_RET()) is safe.
+ An exception to that is the macro ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() which is
+ effective in debug build only: a switch clause ending with
+ ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() is not considered safe.
- Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
* - R16.3
--
2.34.1
On 25.06.2024 08:46, Federico Serafini wrote: > Update ECLAIR configuration to deviate more cases where an > unintentional fallthrough cannot happen. > > Tag Rule 16.3 as clean for arm. > > Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@bugseng.com> > Acked-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org> To add to my reply on the other series: As per above you even acked ... > --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst > +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst > @@ -330,12 +330,34 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules: > - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR. > > * - R16.3 > - - Switch clauses ending with continue, goto, return statements are safe. > + - Statements that change the control flow (i.e., break, continue, goto, > + return) and calls to functions that do not return the control back are > + \"allowed terminal statements\". > - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. > > * - R16.3 > - - Switch clauses ending with a call to a function that does not give > - the control back (i.e., a function with attribute noreturn) are safe. > + - An if-else statement having both branches ending with one of the allowed > + terminal statemets is itself an allowed terminal statements. > + - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. > + > + * - R16.3 > + - An if-else statement having an always true condition and the true > + branch ending with an allowed terminal statement is itself an allowed > + terminal statement. > + - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. > + > + * - R16.3 > + - A switch clause ending with a statement expression which, in turn, ends > + with an allowed terminal statement (e.g., the expansion of > + generate_exception()) is safe. > + - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. > + > + * - R16.3 > + - A switch clause ending with a do-while-false the body of which, in turn, > + ends with an allowed terminal statement (e.g., PARSE_ERR_RET()) is safe. > + An exception to that is the macro ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() which is > + effective in debug build only: a switch clause ending with > + ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() is not considered safe. > - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. ... this explicit statement regarding ASSERT_UNREACHABLE(). Jan
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 25.06.2024 08:46, Federico Serafini wrote: > > Update ECLAIR configuration to deviate more cases where an > > unintentional fallthrough cannot happen. > > > > Tag Rule 16.3 as clean for arm. > > > > Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@bugseng.com> > > Acked-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org> > > To add to my reply on the other series: As per above you even acked ... > > > --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst > > +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst > > @@ -330,12 +330,34 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules: > > - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR. > > > > * - R16.3 > > - - Switch clauses ending with continue, goto, return statements are safe. > > + - Statements that change the control flow (i.e., break, continue, goto, > > + return) and calls to functions that do not return the control back are > > + \"allowed terminal statements\". > > - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. > > > > * - R16.3 > > - - Switch clauses ending with a call to a function that does not give > > - the control back (i.e., a function with attribute noreturn) are safe. > > + - An if-else statement having both branches ending with one of the allowed > > + terminal statemets is itself an allowed terminal statements. > > + - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. > > + > > + * - R16.3 > > + - An if-else statement having an always true condition and the true > > + branch ending with an allowed terminal statement is itself an allowed > > + terminal statement. > > + - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. > > + > > + * - R16.3 > > + - A switch clause ending with a statement expression which, in turn, ends > > + with an allowed terminal statement (e.g., the expansion of > > + generate_exception()) is safe. > > + - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. > > + > > + * - R16.3 > > + - A switch clause ending with a do-while-false the body of which, in turn, > > + ends with an allowed terminal statement (e.g., PARSE_ERR_RET()) is safe. > > + An exception to that is the macro ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() which is > > + effective in debug build only: a switch clause ending with > > + ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() is not considered safe. > > - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. > > ... this explicit statement regarding ASSERT_UNREACHABLE(). You are right... I read the statement about ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() only in the context of do-while-false. Let's continue the discussion in the other email thread.
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.