Welcome to the MISRA discussion forum

I am trying to declare a constant for use in fixing the size of several C++ arrays. I have tried 3 options:
1) #'define MaxTracksConst 8

2) const Rhp_int32_t MaxTracksConst(8);

3) enum %s {one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, MaxTracksConst}

but our LDRA MISRA checker finds fault with all of them ( 1. fails 16-2-2, 2. fails 3-1-1 and 3. fails 4-5-2 ).
Am I missing something, or is there an option that will pass MISRA C++ 2008 checks ?

Kind regards
Insane Vent Storm

Does MISRA-C 2012 mandate prototypes for functions with internal linkage?

While MISRA-C 2012 rule 8.4 is very explicit about prototypes for functions with external linkage, we have not found a corresponding rule for internally linked functions.

Our static analysis tool takes the simplistic approach that prototypes are required in any case due to MISRA-C 2004 8.1 rule. I like to challenge its reasoning.

Thanks.

such as

Would the following examples be compliant with rule #2.4?

I usually define a enum in a project specific H file, to represent a set of signals:
typedef enum {
ADC_VBAT
ADC_FEEDBACK,
ADC_VOLTAGE,

ADC_NUM_SIGNALS
} adc_t ;

And then in the reusable C file, iterate over the configured set of signals. For example, to set the initial value of the averaged signal:

uint8_t i ;

for (i=0U; i < (uint8_t) ADC_NUM_SIGNALS; i++)
{
AdcClearAverage((adc_t) i) ;
}

where AdcClearAverage takes a parameter of type adc_t.

But this now generates warning 10.5 as an unsigned type is being cast to an enum.
What is the correct way to iterate over an enumeration?

Would the following examples be compliant with rule #19.1?

Rule 10.3 covers assignment (as defined in the glossary) and the conversion of the constant expression in case labels.

Exception 1 says "A non-negative integer constant expression of essentially signed type may be assigned to an object of essentially unsigned type if its value can be represented in that type."

Is this exception intended to be restricted to assignment; or does it also apply to case labels?

Would the following examples be compliant with rule #10.3?

Within our development group, there has been some discussion as to whether or not the construction

In Rule 5.9, the amplification says that the identifier name should be unique across all name spaces and translation units. This is an expansion of what's in the rule header, but is consistent with the purpose of the "Amplification" sections. However, the examples imply that identifiers can be unique if there is no linkage. Isn't this a contradiction?