On 28.08.2024 15:12, Federico Serafini wrote:
> --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
> +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
> @@ -565,6 +565,10 @@ of this macro do not lead to developer confusion, and
> can thus be deviated."
> -config=MC3R1.R20.7,reports+={safe,
> "any_area(any_loc(any_exp(macro(^count_args_$))))"}
> -doc_end
>
> +-doc_begin="The expansion of an argument surrounded by tokens '{', '}' and
> ';' is safe."
> +-config=MC3R1.R20.7,expansion_context+={safe,
> "left_right(^[\\{;]$,^[;\\}]$)"}
> +-doc_end
Not the least because this is quite a bit wider than ...
> --- a/xen/include/xen/bitmap.h
> +++ b/xen/include/xen/bitmap.h
> @@ -103,13 +103,10 @@ extern int bitmap_allocate_region(unsigned long
> *bitmap, int pos, int order);
> #define bitmap_switch(nbits, zero, small, large) \
> unsigned int n__ = (nbits); \
> if (__builtin_constant_p(nbits) && !n__) { \
> - /* SAF-7-safe Rule 20.7 non-parenthesized macro argument */ \
> zero; \
> } else if (__builtin_constant_p(nbits) && n__ <= BITS_PER_LONG) { \
> - /* SAF-7-safe Rule 20.7 non-parenthesized macro argument */ \
> small; \
> } else { \
> - /* SAF-7-safe Rule 20.7 non-parenthesized macro argument */ \
> large; \
> }
... what's needed here, I wonder if we're not opening up avenues to
problems by generally permitting that pattern. Plus in the description
I'm missing a statement to the effect of why this is (always) safe.
Jan
