On 13/06/24 10:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.06.2024 08:38, Federico Serafini wrote:
Update ECLAIR configuration to deviate more cases where an
unintentional fallthrough cannot happen.
Add Rule 16.3 to the monitored set and tag it as clean for arm.
Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <[email protected]>
---
* - R16.3
- - Switch clauses ending with continue, goto, return statements are safe.
+ - Statements that change the control flow (i.e., break, continue, goto,
+ return) and calls to functions that do not return the control back are
+ \"allowed terminal statements\".
- Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
* - R16.3
- - Switch clauses ending with a call to a function that does not give
- the control back (i.e., a function with attribute noreturn) are safe.
+ - An if-else statement having both branches ending with one of the allowed
+ terminal statemets is itself an allowed terminal statements.
Nit: "... terminal statements is ... terminal statement."
Thanks.
+ - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R16.3
+ - An if-else statement having an always true condition and the true
+ branch ending with an allowed terminal statement is itself an allowed
+ terminal statement.
+ - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R16.3
+ - Switch clauses ending with a statement expression which, in turn, ends
+ with an allowed terminal statement are safe (e.g., the expansion of
+ generate_exception()).
+ - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR.
+
+ * - R16.3
+ - Switch clauses ending with a do-while-false which, in turn, ends with an
Maybe more precisely "the body of which"?
Will do.
+ allowed terminal statement are safe (e.g., PARSE_ERR_RET()).
+ Being ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() a construct that is effective in debug builds
+ only, it is not considered as an allowed terminal statement, despite its
+ definition.
DYM despite its name? Its definition is what specifically renders it unsuitable
for release builds.
In debug builds, ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() expands to a do-while-false
the body of which ends with __builtin_unreachable() which is a builtin
marked as "noreturn" and thus considered as one of the "allowed
terminal statements".
As a result, ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() will be considered as an
"allowed terminal statement" as well, which is something we want to
avoid.
Also I think the sentence wants to either start "ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() being a
..." or wants to be re-ordered to e.g. "Being a construct that is effective in
debug builds only, ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() is not considered ..."
Jan
--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.
Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)
