Re: [PATCH 0/9] MISRA C 2012 8.1 rule fixes

From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>, roberto.bagnara@bugseng.com
Cc: Bertrand Marquis <Bertrand.Marquis@arm.com>,
	Michal Orzel <Michal.Orzel@arm.com>,
	Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>,
	Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>, Wei Liu <wl@xen.org>,
	Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
	Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@suse.com>,
	Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov>,
	"Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@apertussolutions.com>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] MISRA C 2012 8.1 rule fixes
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:32:44 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e6c10adc-27a8-2f31-7d84-6aee916c56bf@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2206221212510.2157383@ubuntu-linux-20-04-desktop>

On 22.06.2022 21:23, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> A quick question about Rule 8.1.
> 
> 
> Michal sent a patch series to fix Xen against Rule 8.1 (here is a link
> if you are interested: https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=165570851227125)
> 
> Although we all generally agree that the changes are a good thing, there
> was a question about the rule itself. Specifically, is the following
> actually a violation?
> 
>   unsigned x;
> 
> 
> Looking through the examples in the MISRA document I can see various
> instances of more confusing and obvious violations such as:
> 
>   const x;
>   extern x;
> 
> but no examples of using "unsigned" without "int". Do you know if it is
> considered a violation?

And if it is, by implication would plain "long" also be a violation?

Jan