Welcome to the MISRA discussion forum

MISRA C:2012 Rule 14.2 puts the following restriction on the "third clause" (called "expression" in C++:2008):

Shall not use objects that are modified in the for loop body.

For example, the following violates this rule:
[code]
for (int i=0; i

I have a question on adding a MISRA C and MISRA C++ supporting tool to the "Useful Links" page on https://www.misra.org.uk/Links/tabid/63/Default.aspx

Please guide me how I can request addition to the page.

Thank you and have a splendid day.

Best

Ray

It is pretty clear from the Amplification that this is not a violation of Rule 20.8:

What exactly is meant by the "use" of "variable-length array types"? The examples suggest that the mere declaration of an object of variable length array type violates this rule which makes sense if the declaration is thought of as "using" the VLA type.

The example below declares a pointer to a VLA type and then dereferences the pointer:

Hi,
Could you please confirm whether the "MISRA C:2004 Permits " is applicable for " MISRA C :2012" also.
Thanks,
Jayaram

Hi everyone,
Can anyone give an example of MISRA-C "switch" statement pls....

MISRA C 2012 Rule 15.7 states in the amplification that "The else statement shall contain at least either one side effect or a
comment." Does "The else statement" refers to any else statement or just the final else statement that is required
by the rule when there are one or more "else if" statements? Is the following example a violation of Rule 15.7 because the else
statement does not contain a side effect or comment or is it compliant because the else is not required by the rule?

I wonder if it has ever been specified a sort of equivalent MISRA C standard, always for safety-critical systems, but not embedded SW, rather running on host. For instance, Plant Monitoring and Air Traffic Management.

Hi all,
Where and how can download MISRA 2012 guidelines? Please....

Directive 4.6 indicates "typedefs that indicate sign and signedness should be used in place of the basic numerical types" and suggests that, for C99-compliant systems, the types of should be used.

stdint.h also defines "fast" types which are at least of the indicated length, but may be larger if such a length could be handled more efficiently by the processor.

Is it a violation of Directive 4.6 to utilize these types? They are not "basic numerical types", but also do not necessarily adhere to a fixed length as specified by their names.