On 19.02.2024 14:24, Federico Serafini wrote:
> Update ECLAIR configuration to consider safe switch clauses ending
> with __{get,put}_user_bad().
>
> Update docs/misra/deviations.rst accordingly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <[email protected]>
As mentioned I'm not happy with this, not the least because of it being
unclear why these two would be deviated, when there's no sign of a
similar deviation for, say, __bad_atomic_size(). Imo this approach
doesn't scale, and that's already leaving aside that the purpose of
identically named (pseudo-)helpers could differ between architectures,
thus putting under question ...
> --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
> +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
> @@ -368,6 +368,10 @@ safe."
> -config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe,
> "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(/BUG\\(\\);/))))"}
> -doc_end
>
> +-doc_begin="Switch clauses ending with constructs \"__get_user_bad()\" and
> \"__put_user_bad()\" are safe: they denote an unreachable program point."
> +-config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe,
> "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(/__(put|get)_user_bad\\(\\);/))))"}
> +-doc_end
... the global scope of such a deviation. While it may not be a good idea,
even within an arch such (pseudo-)helpers could be used for multiple
distinct purposes.
Jan
