Hi Julien, > On 24 Jun 2022, at 12:20, Julien Grall <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Luca, > > On 24/06/2022 11:53, Luca Fancellu wrote: >> Add instructions on how to build cppcheck, the version currently used >> and an example to use the cppcheck integration to run the analysis on >> the Xen codebase >> Signed-off-by: Luca Fancellu <[email protected]> >> --- >> docs/misra/cppcheck.txt | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 docs/misra/cppcheck.txt >> diff --git a/docs/misra/cppcheck.txt b/docs/misra/cppcheck.txt >> new file mode 100644 >> index 000000000000..4df0488794aa >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/docs/misra/cppcheck.txt >> @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@ >> +Cppcheck for Xen static and MISRA analysis >> +========================================== >> + >> +Xen can be analysed for both static analysis problems and MISRA violation >> using >> +cppcheck, the open source tool allows the creation of a report with all the >> +findings. Xen has introduced the support in the Makefile so it's very easy >> to >> +use and in this document we can see how. >> + >> +First recommendation is to use exactly the same version in this page and >> provide >> +the same option to the build system, so that every Xen developer can >> reproduce >> +the same findings. > > I am not sure I agree. I think it is good that each developper use their own > version (so long it is supported), so they may be able to find issues that > may not appear with 2.7.
Right now the reality is not that great: - 2.8 version of cppcheck has bugs and Misra checking is not working - older versions of cppcheck are generating wrong html or xml files So in practice anybody can try an other version but at the moment only 2.7 is useable. Cheers Bertrand
