Welcome to the MISRA discussion forum

Quote: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.

Quote:if its value can be represented in that type.

Shouldn't example one be compliant?

typedef struct vector {...} vector;

The two vector identifiers are both referring to the same type.

Hello,
if we want to use the same Header files for "C" and "C++" we must use the "extern C" constuct. But the "extern C" construct must be placed before the include of the Header and so our tool reports a MISRA 16-0-1 violation. Is this violation valid? And if so, is there an other solution?

On the general subject of MISRA compliance and auto-code, is anyone out there using a code generating tool and trying to produce MISRA C++ 2008 compliant code ?

In MISRA-C:2012, it is stated that the essential type of the constant expression ~(unsigned short)3 is the UTLR of its value (i.e., -4), but the definition of UTLR seems not to cover this case (that is, the UTLR of -4 is undefined).

Another similar example is (unsigned char)3 - (unsigned char)4.

What is the essential type of these constant expressions?

Would the following examples be compliant with rule #15.7?

Does this code violate rule 19.1?

The rule definition is "An identifier with external linkage shall have exactly one external definition." When I look at where it says there are multiple definitions, it points to the same line.
Ie.
global variable 'CALIBRATION_MISMATCH' has multiple tentatives of definitions (C:\User\Desktop\globals.c:137, C:\Users\Desktop\globals.c:137) (Required)
U8 CALIBRATION_MISMATCH;

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.