On 2025-08-26 15:14, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote:
On 8/26/25 10:56, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
On 2025-08-26 09:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 26.08.2025 09:36, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote:
--- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
+++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
@@ -575,6 +575,11 @@ safe."
-config=MC3A2.R17.7,calls+={safe, "any()",
"decl(name(__builtin_memcpy||__builtin_memmove||__builtin_memset||
cpumask_check))"}
-doc_end
+-doc_begin="It is safe to deviate functions like 'memcpy()',
'memset()', 'memmove()', as they return a value purely for
convenience,
+their primary functionality (memory manipulation) remains
unaffected, and their return values are generally non-critical and
seldom relied upon."
+-config=MC3A2.R17.7,calls+={safe, "any()", "decl(name(memcpy||
memset||memmove))"}
+-doc_end
+
#
# Series 18.
#
--- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst
+++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
@@ -576,6 +576,13 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules:
- __builtin_memset()
- cpumask_check()
+ * - R17.7
+ - It is safe to deviate functions like 'memcpy()', 'memset()',
'memmove()',
+ as they return a value purely for convenience, their primary
functionality
+ (memory manipulation) remains unaffected, and their return
values are
+ generally non-critical and seldom relied upon.
+ - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
I realize I may be overly nitpicky here, but in files named
deviations.* I find it
odd to read "It is safe to deviate ...". I further find the use of
"like" odd when
you enumerate the complete set anyway.
Updated wording (probably for the v3, if it's fine):
The functions 'memcpy()', 'memset()', and 'memmove()' return values
primarily for convenience.
The core functionality of these functions (memory manipulation) remains
unaffected, and their return values
are generally non-critical and seldom relied upon. Therefore,
deviations
from this rule regarding their use
can be considered safe.
The last sentence reads a little strangely. I would write: "Therefore,
violations of this rule due to these functions are deemed safe."
Dmytro.
I wonder whether the deviation wants generalizing anyway:
Informational return
values are generally okay to ignore. That is, the Eclair
configuration
would be
limited to the three functions for now, but the text / comment could
already be
broader. Then, for example, open-coded uses of the corresponding
builtin functions
would also be covered right away.
While I understand the pragmatic reasoning, from a MISRA compliance
standpoint it would be better not to make the written justification
and
the actual deviation diverge, and then wide both the ECLAIR
configuration and its justification suitably once new cases want to be
deviated. Other than that,
Reviewed-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetr...@bugseng.com>
--
Nicola Vetrini, B.Sc.
Software Engineer
BUGSENG (https://bugseng.com)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicola-vetrini-a42471253
