On 07/11/2023 14:45, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
Hi Julien,
Hi,
On 2023-11-07 13:44, Julien Grall wrote:
+in the community."
+-config=MC3R1.R15.2,reports+={deliberate,
"any_area(any_loc(text(^.*goto (again|retry).*$)))"}
+-doc_end
+
#
# Series 20.
#
diff --git a/docs/misra/deviations.rst b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
index 8511a189253b..7d1e1f0d09b3 100644
--- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst
+++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
@@ -208,6 +208,16 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules:
statements are deliberate.
- Project-wide deviation; tagged as `disapplied` for ECLAIR.
+ * - R15.2
+ - The possible prevention of developer confusion as a result of
using
+ control flow structures other than backwards goto-s in some
instances was
+ deemed not strong enough to justify the additional complexity
introduced
+ in the code. Such instances are the uses of the following
labels:
+
+ - again
+ - retry
Have you investigated the possibility to use SAF-X in the code? If so,
what's the problem to use them?
Cheers,
This is another viable option: putting the SAF comment on top of the
label should suffice,
as shown below:
/* SAF-2-safe */
repeat:
++fmt; /* this also skips first '%' */
switch (*fmt) {
case '-': flags |= LEFT; goto repeat;
case '+': flags |= PLUS; goto repeat;
case ' ': flags |= SPACE; goto repeat;
case '#': flags |= SPECIAL; goto repeat;
case '0': flags |= ZEROPAD; goto repeat;
}
I think it ultimately boils down to whether Xen wants to promote the use
of certain labels
as the designated alternative when no other control flow mechanism is
clearer from a
readability perspective (in which case there should be a consistent
naming to capture and deviate
all of them, such as "retry") or do so on a case-by-case basis with a
SAF, which is ok,
I would prefer a case-by-case basis because it adds an additional
review. With deviating by keywords, the reviewrs/developpers may not be
aware of the deviation (which may be fine for some, but IMHO not this one).
but then
it needs someone to check each one and either fix them or mark them as ok.
Don't we technically already need to go through all the existing use of
ready & co even if we deviate by keyword?
Yet another route could be to mark with a SAF all those present right
now to establish a baseline.
How many do we have?
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall