On 13.03.2024 01:28, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > --- a/docs/misra/rules.rst > +++ b/docs/misra/rules.rst > @@ -478,6 +478,30 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change. > - In addition to break, also other unconditional flow control statements > such as continue, return, goto are allowed. > > + * - `Rule 16.4 > <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_16_04.c>`_ > + - Required > + - Every switch statement shall have a default label > + - Switch statements with enums as controlling expression don't need > + a default label as gcc -Wall enables -Wswitch which warns (and > + breaks the build)
I think this could do with mentioning -Werror. > if one of the enum labels is missing from the > + switch. > + > + Switch statements with integer types as controlling expression > + should have a default label: > + > + - if the switch is expected to handle all possible cases > + explicitly, then a default label shall be added to handle > + unexpected error conditions, using BUG(), ASSERT(), WARN(), > + domain_crash(), or other appropriate methods; > + > + - if the switch is expected to handle a subset of all > + possible cases, then a default label shall be added with an > + in-code comment as follows:: > + > + /* only handle a subset of the possible cases */ > + default: > + break; Unless it being made crystal clear that mechanically reproducing this comment isn't going to do, I'm going to have a hard time picking between actively vetoing or just accepting if someone else acks this. At the very least, though, the suggested (or, as requested, example) comment should match ./CODING_STYLE. And it may need placing differently if I understood correctly what Misra / Eclair demand (between default: and break; rather than ahead of both). The only place I'd accept a pre-cooked comment is to cover the "notifier pattern". Jan
