On 14.06.2024 08:31, Federico Serafini wrote:
> --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
> +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
> @@ -413,6 +413,10 @@ explicit comment indicating the fallthrough intention is
> present."
> -config=MC3R1.R17.1,macros+={hide , "^va_(arg|start|copy|end)$"}
> -doc_end
>
> +-doc_begin="Not using the return value of a function do not endanger safety
> if it coincides with the first actual argument."
> +-config=MC3R1.R17.7,calls+={safe, "any()",
> "decl(name(__builtin_memcpy||__builtin_memmove||__builtin_memset||cpumask_check))"}
While correct here, ...
> --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst
> +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
> @@ -364,6 +364,15 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules:
> by `stdarg.h`.
> - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR.
>
> + * - R17.7
> + - Not using the return value of a function do not endanger safety if it
> + coincides with the first actual argument.
> + - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. Such functions are:
> + - __builtin_memcpy()
> + - __builtin_memmove()
> + - __builtin_memset()
> + - __cpumask_check()
... there are stray leading underscores on the last one here. With that
adjustment (and perhaps "s/ do / does /") the deviations.rst change would then
look okay to me, but I don't feel competent to ack deviations.ecl changes.
Still, as another question: Is it really relevant here that the argument in
question is specifically the 1st one?
Jan
