Welcome to the MISRA discussion forum

My doubt about this rule is if they violate rules in different files, as follows.If they violate the rules in the same project.
a.c

Hello,

I am curious if Rule 7-5-3 is only applicable when a reference to a parameter that is passed by const reference is returned from a function, but also if that reference is stored and then used later.

The rationale of the rule states that "It is implementation-defined behaviour whether the reference parameter is a temporary object or a reference to the parameter." and then goes on to say that a temporary object will be destroyed when the function returns and that using an object after its destruction will lead to undefined behaviour.

Considering the following code:

• Is this understanding correct?
  
• Is so, why is only returning the reference explicitly covered by the rules, and not storing the reference as in the code snippet above?

Hi all,

PC-Lint warn me that i'm using the address of a near auto variable.

My code looks like this:

Hello,

Why the following code is the violation of MISRA 20.2 ?

Hi there,
we are looking for a certified (ISO 26262) and possibly Misra compliant Math library. Both C or C++ would do. We would need it to run on both Arm and Intel architectures which for instance eliminates Intel MKL (which is apparently getting certified).

We have looked through the open source implementations, in particular Eigen, Armadillo, or Blaze but all of them throw too many Misra defects.

We would heavily appreciate any suggestions or if none of the libraries are available - what do automotive folks then normally do?


We are looking for the following features in the library:

1. static memory representation:
dense matrices (probably column major for efficient vector representations)
sparse matrices
symmetric matrices
upper/lower triangular matrices
diagonal matrices
block representations

2. basic math operations (in a memory efficient manner):
addition
subtraction
multiplications:
matrix-matrix
matrix-vector
matrix-scalar
vector-vector (inner, outer products)
vector-scalar
transposition
integer powers
able to apply basic scalar math operations on the entire matrix

3. basic solvers:
norms:
froebenius
l2
l1
infinity
matrix inversion
linear system solvers (e.g. Ax = b)

Hello,

We are interested about id 0000023 but in C++.

We would like to be MISRA compatible.
But forbid multiple return in some case make the code less understandable.
Further more with the use of RAII, it is pretty safe to have multiple return inside a function.
This rule inherited from C where multiple return is highly unsafe is about to evolve in new version of MISRA C++ ?
If not, this is a "Required" rules, could it be added to a "deviation permits" ?


Example:
If we transform this code using "early return pattern" method which is not MISRA on rule 6-6-5.

In Example suit R_05_01_2.c
Kindly explain why the following code is non-compliant?
int32_t ABC;
int32_t ABC = 0; /* Non-compliant */

When rule 21.15 of MISRA C 2012 Amendment 1 refers to the types that pointer arguments are pointers to, how are explicit casts interpreted? Are the types that they are pointers to considered before or after the cast?

MISRA C:2012 Addendum 3 defines the coverage classification "Out of Scope" as "Aspects of behaviour are out of scope for C99 and are related to C11." Considering this definition, why is EXP46-C classified "Out of Scope"? It seems, there is no dependency of the rule to C11 at all.

I would actually argue that EXP46-C is covered by MISRA C:2012 essential type model explicitly and strong.

MISRA C:2012 Addendum 3 defines the coverage classification "Out of Scope" as "Aspects of behaviour are out of scope for C99 and are related to C11." Considering this definition, why is EXP35-C classified "Out of Scope"? The very first example I see in EXP35-C (section 4.5.1 in CERT C 2016 edition) is a non-compliant example for C99. CERT C actually states that the example would work fine in C11, but fails in C99.