On 20.06.2024 16:02, Federico Serafini wrote:
> --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
> +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
> @@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ safe."
> -doc_end
>
> -doc_begin="Switch clauses ending with an explicit comment indicating the
> fallthrough intention are safe."
> --config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe,
> "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(^(?s).*/\\* [fF]all ?through.?
> \\*/.*$,0..1))))"}
> +-config=MC3R1.R16.3,reports+={safe,
> "any_area(end_loc(any_exp(text(^(?s).*/\\* [fF]all[ -]?through.?
> \\*/.*$,0..2))))"}
Is is a regex, isn't it? Doesn't the period also need escaping (or enclosing
in square brackets)? (I realize it was like this before, but still.)
> --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst
> +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
> @@ -353,6 +353,10 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules:
> However, the use of such comments in new code is deprecated:
> the pseudo-keyword "fallthrough" shall be used.
> - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. The accepted comments are:
> + - /\* fall-through \*/
> + - /\* Fall-through. \*/
> + - /\* Fall-through \*/
> + - /\* fall-through. \*/
> - /\* fall through \*/
> - /\* fall through. \*/
> - /\* fallthrough \*/
Nit: Can the capital-F and non-capital-f variants please be next to each other?
Jan
