MISRA Discussion Forums

I am not sure, if this potential problem is categorized under any MISRA rules??

Code:
#include

static unsigned short var2;

int main()

{

       unsigned char var1 = 0;

       while (var1 <  var2)

       {

          var1++;

       }

       (void)printf("program completed \n ");

       return 0;

}

The variable var2 can have some value updated outside this function(may be more than 256) and causing a system crash as the while condition never fails.

I run this with PC-Lint and Parasoft's MISRA checker, both doesn't find any error with this portion of code.

Quote from amplification of rule 9.1:

Quote:According to The Standard, objects with static storage duration are automatically initialized to zero

sprabhakars Wrote:I just re edited the code for better clarity -
I am not sure, if this potential problem is categorized under any MISRA rules??

Code:
#include int main() { unsigned char var1 = 0; unsigned short var2 = 300; while (var1 < var2) { var1++; } (void)printf("program completed \n "); return 0; }

The variable var2 shall be greater than var1(var1 is a char and var2 is short) and may not breaks out of this while the while condition never fails.

I run this with PC-Lint and Parasoft's MISRA checker, both doesn't find any error with this portion of code.

Unfortunately, both operands to < are "essentially unsigned" so none of the 10.x rules is violated.
The printf/return statements however violate rule 2.1 "unreachable code".
But as you already witnessed, that is difficult to track down during static analysis (the code needs to be executed during analysis).

Hi
Isn't there a rule to ensure that comparison is perform on same object type?

Francois Wrote:Hi
Isn't there a rule to ensure that comparison is perform on same object type?

Check the table in MISRA C 2012 Appendix D.1: both operands are essentially unsigned.
The table in rule 10.1 poses no restrictions on operator < for essentially unsigned operands.
If both operands are supposed to be of the same essential type (not just the same essential type category): that is not clearly stated IMHO.
IMHO, currently the bug would be catched only if there is a narrowing assignment which is prohibited by rule 10.3 (see below).
Anyhow, an official clarification would be nice.

Code:
#include 

int main(void)

{

  unsigned char var1 = 0;

  unsigned short var2 =  300;

  const unsigned char cmp = var2;/*Expression assigned to a narrower or different essential type [MISRA 2012 Rule 10.3, required]*/

  while (var1 <  cmp)

  {

    var1++;

  }

  (void)printf("program completed \n ");

  return 0;

}

sprabhakars

dg1980

sprabhakars

dg1980

Francois

dg1980