Welcome to the MISRA discussion forum

Rule 15.5 is "A function should have a single point of exit at the end".

The Rationale of this rule says:

Early returns may lead to the unintentional omission of function termination code.

1. What is "function termination code" in this context? Does it mean user defined C statements of the function or the function epilogue after the compilation?

2. If it is the function epilogue, then does it mean that when multiple exit points are used, then it MAY result in imbalanced context retrieval when the function returns, for some compilers?

How can resolve next Notes??

Note 1960: Violates MISRA C++ 2008 Required Rule 5-0-6, Implicit conversion of integer to smaller type
Note 1960: Violates MISRA C++ 2008 Required Rule 5-0-3, Implicit conversion of integer cvalue expression

In this assignament:
CTU.EVTCFGR[fTriggerChannel].B.CHANNEL_VALUE = static_cast (fAdcChannel & 0xFFU);

Where CHANNEL_VALUE is:
union { /* Event Config 0..63 (Base+0x0030-0x012C) */
vuint32_t R;
struct {
vuint32_t :16;
vuint32_t TM:1;
vuint32_t CLR_FLAG:1;
vuint32_t :5;
vuint32_t ADC_SEL:1;
vuint32_t :1;
vuint32_t CHANNEL_VALUE:7;
} B;
} EVTCFGR[64];

Thanks in advance

I read on the MISRA web site the description of MISRA C2012 that there was also a ISO 26262 compliance guideline/cross reference.
I cannot find that guideline either as free or paid posting. What are the search terms I should use?

Kind regards,
Richard Vance
Software Safety LLC
USA/Mexico

Hi,

Please can anybody help me to understand whether Misra C rules support signed to unsigned and vis-verse data typecasting?

If there is requirement to do some manipulation on signed and unsigned values, then i think it is ok to type-caste. But the requirement given to us says that whenever there is typecasting happening from signed to unsigned and vis-verse, then such incident should be failed.

Thanks in advance,
Deepa

Hi,

Please can anybody help me to understand whether Misra C rules support signed to unsigned and vis-verse data typecasting?

Thanks in advance,
Deepa

The amplification for this rule states:

Quote:In C99 the minimum requirement is that the first 31 characters of external identifiers are significant, with each universal character or corresponding extended source character occupying between 6 and 10 characters.

Quote:In C99 the minimum requirement is that the first 31 characters of external identifiers are significant, with each universal character or corresponding extended source character counting as a single character.

Hi team,
First of all, I want to thank you for supporting people with this amazing forum that is very useful , "Thumbs up".

I have the following File Include Guard:
#ifndef _MYHEADER_H_ // beginning
#define _MYHEADER_H_
...
#endif // end

My question is if File Include Guards have to be applicable/reviewed with the MISRA-C:2004 Rule 19.4 ?

Thanks and Best Regards.
edgartorres0523

Rule 2.4 states that a project should have no unused tag declarations. However in Rule 5.7, a tag name shall be a unique identifier, there is an exception that allows the tag to be the same as the typedef name. You give this example:
typedef struct coord
{
uint16_t x;
uint16_t y;
} coord; /* Compliant by exception */

Can this also be an exception to 2.4 ?

The guidelines proscribe declaring unused types, tags on structures or enums, macros, or labels.

Shouldn't there be a prohibition of undeclared variables, too?

-Stephen H. Westin

Dear

Rule 18.4 mentions +, -, += and -= operators and also ++ operator (both post and pre fix?). -- operator is not mentioned. How to deal with it?

Regards