Hi Julien, > On 24 Jun 2022, at 13:08, Julien Grall <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 24/06/2022 12:40, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >> Hi Julien, > > Hi Bertrand, > >>> On 24 Jun 2022, at 12:20, Julien Grall <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Luca, >>> >>> On 24/06/2022 11:53, Luca Fancellu wrote: >>>> Add instructions on how to build cppcheck, the version currently used >>>> and an example to use the cppcheck integration to run the analysis on >>>> the Xen codebase >>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Fancellu <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> docs/misra/cppcheck.txt | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+) >>>> create mode 100644 docs/misra/cppcheck.txt >>>> diff --git a/docs/misra/cppcheck.txt b/docs/misra/cppcheck.txt >>>> new file mode 100644 >>>> index 000000000000..4df0488794aa >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/docs/misra/cppcheck.txt >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@ >>>> +Cppcheck for Xen static and MISRA analysis >>>> +========================================== >>>> + >>>> +Xen can be analysed for both static analysis problems and MISRA violation >>>> using >>>> +cppcheck, the open source tool allows the creation of a report with all >>>> the >>>> +findings. Xen has introduced the support in the Makefile so it's very >>>> easy to >>>> +use and in this document we can see how. >>>> + >>>> +First recommendation is to use exactly the same version in this page and >>>> provide >>>> +the same option to the build system, so that every Xen developer can >>>> reproduce >>>> +the same findings. >>> >>> I am not sure I agree. I think it is good that each developper use their >>> own version (so long it is supported), so they may be able to find issues >>> that may not appear with 2.7. >> Right now the reality is not that great: >> - 2.8 version of cppcheck has bugs and Misra checking is not working > > Can you be more specifics for "bugs". Is it Xen specific?
No it is not Xen specific (see [1] for more info) > > Also, what do you mean by MISRA checking is not working? Is this a regression > or intentional? It is a regression. > >> - older versions of cppcheck are generating wrong html or xml files > > That's fine to say we don't support cppcheck < 2.7 (we do that also for the > compiler). Ok [1] https://sourceforge.net/p/cppcheck/discussion/general/thread/bfc3ab6c41/?limit=25 Cheers Bertrand
