On 31/08/23 15:05, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 31.08.2023 14:54, Simone Ballarin wrote:
On 31/08/23 13:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 31.08.2023 12:08, Simone Ballarin wrote:
The danger of multi-inclusion also exists for .c files, why do you want
to avoid guards for them?
Counter question: Why only add guards to some of them? (My personal
answer is "Because it's extra clutter.")
It's not "some of them", it's exactly the ones used in an #include
directive, so I'm not getting your objection.
My point is that by adding guards only for files we presently use in some
#include directive, we set us up for introducing new violations as soon
as another .c file becomes the subject of an #include.The more that it
is unusual to add guards in .c files, i.e. it is to be expected that
people wouldn't think about this extra Misra requirement.
Jan
I can agree to partially adopt the directive: I will add a deviation for
C files in rules.txt.
--
Simone Ballarin, M.Sc.
Field Application Engineer, BUGSENG (https://bugseng.com)
