> On 5 Oct 2023, at 00:46, Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi MISRA C working group (Jan, Roger, Andrew, Julien, Bertrand, George) > > in a recent thread Andrew pointed out that the SAF-2-safe tag is > confusing and requested a rename: > https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=169634970821202 > > As documented by docs/misra/documenting-violations.rst: > > - SAF-X-safe: This tag means that the next line of code contains a finding, > but > the non compliance to the checker is analysed and demonstrated to be safe. > - SAF-X-false-positive-<tool>: This tag means that the next line of code > contains a finding, but the finding is a bug of the tool. > > > Today we have already 28 instances of SAF tags in the Xen codebase. > > > Andrew suggested "ANALYSIS" instead of SAF so I would imagine: > - ANALYSIS-X-safe > - ANALYSIS-X-false-positive-<tool> > > If we really want a rename I suggest to rename SAF to SAFE: > - SAFE-X-safe > - SAFE-X-false-positive-<tool> > > Or maybe MISRA: > - MISRA-X-safe > - MISRA-X-false-positive-<tool> > > But I actually prefer to keep the tag as it is today.
We chose a generic name instead of MISRA because the tag can potentially suppress findings of any checker, including MISRA checker. If SAF-* is confusing, what about FUSA-* ? Anyway I’m thinking that every name we could come up will be confusing at first, improving the documentation would mitigate it (by improving I mean to improve the fruition of it, for example a Read the docs documentation has the search bar, a quick copy paste of SAF- would make the documenting-violations page visible.) > > > If you have any naming suggestions please let me know by Oct 11. After > that, I plan to run a Doodle poll to check the preference of the group. > > Cheers, > > Stefano >
