Welcome to the MISRA discussion forum

Hello,

I have an issue with MISRA 9.1 rule. In my code i have a "if" loop and inside that a variable is initialized and then is read after that. But when i do static analysis using pclint then i have a warning for 9.1 rule. Below is my code :

struct mgm2_info_return msg_ascu_info;

Hello,

I am facing an issue relating to rule 8.3. I am fixing MISRA violations in the project. The following code line is where i have issue:

in one of the files in the project i have the following code line:

dies->DrvPosn_D_SvRc_Rq = get_DrvPosn_D_SvRc_Rq();

get_DrvPosn_D_SvRc_Rq() is defined in other file as below:

tm_uint8 get_DrvPosn_D_SvRc_Rq(void)
{
return cio_DrvPosn_D_SvRc_Rq;
}

When i am performing the MISRA check , i get a error at 'dies->DrvPosn_D_SvRc_Rq = get_DrvPosn_D_SvRc_Rq();' line saying that Symbol 'get_DrvPosn_D_SvRc_Rq(void)' redeclared .

All the variables have same datatype tm_uint8;

Can you point out where the issue lies?

Thank you!

Ankit

Within the context of this rule, is the following definition/declaration pair allowed?

The MISRA C Working Group are pleased to announce the publication of two Addenda to the MISRA C:2012 guidelines.

The 2nd edition of MISRA C:2012 Addendum 2 (Coverage of MISRA C:2012 against ISO/IEC TS 17961:2013 "C Secure") updates the document to include coverage provided by Amendment 1 (Additional security guidelines for MISRA C:2012).

MISRA C:2012 Addendum 3 (Coverage of MISRA C:2012 against CERT C) provides an analysis of the coverage provided by MISRA C:2012 (including Amendment 1) against the recommendations provided by CERT C.

Together, these two documents demonstrate that MISRA C provides best practice guidelines for the development of secure applications, as well as the widely considered applicability of MISRA C for safety-related systems.

Future work within the MISRA C Working Group on the Standard Library for Hosted Applications, and to add the new features of C11 are underway, and will enhance the coverage of MISRA C in these areas.

Both documents are available as free downloads from the "Resources" section of this Bulletin Board.

If you have questions on the new Guidelines then they can be asked under the relevant forum topic (e.g. a question about Rule 12.5 should be added under "MISRA C > MISRA C:2012 guidelines > 8.12 Expressions").

While it is widely considered that MISRA C provides best practice guidelines for the development of safety-related systems, the publication of "CERT C" has generated discussion on the applicability of MISRA C for secure applications.

This document contains a mapping of MISRA C coverage of the "CERT C" requirements and shows that for freestanding applications, MISRA C already has excellent coverage of those recommendations.

Attached Files

  MISRA C 2012 Addendum 3.pdf (Size: 129.97 KB / Downloads: 221)

Hi,

the code below crashes as a result of the undefined behavior referenced in this rule.
Yet, no virtual base class is used as stated in the headline, the text and the example.
So, i think it could mislead any static analysis tool vendor when implementing this rule.

struct Test
{
char str1[20];
char str2[20];
};

struct Test t =
{
"Hello",
"World"
};

LDRA flags this with 397 S (Array initialisation has insufficient items.) violation of 8-5-2 (Braces shall be used to indicate and match the structure in the non-zero initialization of arrays and structures.)

Looking at the details of the rule in the guidelines, I see why: "The non-zero initialization of arrays or structures requires an explicit initializer for each element."

It seems there should be an exception for initializing a character array with the string syntax, since:
a. the unused characters are implicitly null character 0
b. there is no MISRA compliant way to explicitly add null characters to a "string"

I think MISRA C 2004 has a similar problem, but I haven't looked at 2012 yet.

Hi,

I was just reading this article about the Toyota incident (http://www.safetyresearch.net/Library/Ba...RUBBED.pdf) and was wondering why this rule is advisory compared to MISRA C 2004 and MISRA C 2012?

Dear MISRA team,

i was wondering why is this rule advisory, when basically the same undefined behaviour applies as referenced in rule 5-2-2 (ISO 5.2.9(8))?
The result of

Hello community,

recently, I bought the publication "MISRA AC AGC - Guidelines for the application of MISRA-C:2004 in the context of automatic code generation".
I bought this document because my code analyzer tools POLYSPACE from MATHWORKS support the analysis based on either MISRA-C:2004, MISRA-C:2012 or MISRA AC AC. As the latter one is based on MISRA-C:2004 I wonder, whether the standard MISRA-C:2012 with the exceptions resp. modifications described in Appendix E would be the 'better' choice?

Thank you for any response and
Best Regards.
Manfred