Welcome to the MISRA discussion forum

Rule 2.5 Is #undef considered a “use” of a macro”?
For example

Does the following violate rule 2.7 (There should be no unused parameters in functions)?

I have a question for an exception of Rule8.3.

I think that the structure "tab" of the following sample does not have compatibility.
Is this right?

I am checking the 9.References on MISRA-C:2012.

[1] MISRA Guidelines for the Use of the C Language In Vehicle Based Software ISBN 0-9524159-9-0, Motor Industry Research
Association, Nuneaton, April 1998.
This is ISBN 10.

It was also in the reference on MISRA-C 2004.

but

On a paper book of Guidelines for the Use of the C Language in Vehicle Based Software
ISBN 0-9524156-9-0
This is ISBN 10.

Please check them.

In Japanese Guide to guideline for MISRA-C:2004,
the reference of the document was ISBN 0-9524156-9-0.
We might report it already.

BTW.,
In misra web site http://www.misra.org.uk/Publications/tab...fault.aspx
Guidelines for the Use of the C Language in Vehicle Based Software, ISBN 978-0-9524156-6-5, April 1998.
This is ISBN 13.

Best Regards.
Dr. Kiyoshi Ogawa
@kaizen_nagoya

1. extern int s=10;
2. static int s;
3.
4. void foo()
5. {
6. /* Do Something*/
7. }


Is line 1 non compliant for Rule 8.8 in the above example. I'm confused since line 1 gives a definition and not just declaration.
Here I'm not able to make out whether the var 's' have external or internal linkage.

My compiler binds 's' var with extern linkage if a definition is given with extern.(is value is also assigned like the above case).

I can't make sense of the wording of 045B. I think there may be a copy-&-paste problem--the English seems garbled--but I'm not sure enough of my understanding of Stateflow yet to figure out what the 'correct' and 'incorrect' examples are meant to convey, so I'm not comfortable assuming how the rule should read. Could someone perhaps explain this rule for me or tell me how the rule should read? Thanks.

Does rule 7-3-1 require a function declared at global scope be declared as "extern 'C'" for both the function's declaration and its definition or does one "extern 'C'" for that function suffice? For example, is this okay:

Given the general lack of response with respect to MISRA C++ guidelines, is it fair to say MISRA C++ has been effectively "abandoned" by the committee?

Is it intended to ban the use of
[code]std::cout

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?