Welcome to the MISRA discussion forum

There shall be no more than one definition of each virtual function on each path through the inheritance hierarchy.

If I'm interpreting this rule correctly, once you define a virtual function for a derived class with the virtual base class as an ancestor, no more derivations in the chain can override the first definition.

This would seem to cripple a key advantage of using classes and an object-oriented design.

Isn't it pretty common to override a virtual member function in a child class even if the parent class has provided a different definition? Please explain.

In the Amplification for Rule 6.1 :

For C99 : The appropriate types are :

1. either unsigned or signed int.
This refers to unsigned int and signed int only OR any other datatype..?

2. Another explicitly signed or explicitly unsigned integer type that is premitted by the implementation.
What all types does this refer to ? Does this refer to unsigned short OR unsigned short int etc.

Please clarify.

In rule 2.1, Note: "code that has been conditionally excluded by pre-processor directives is not subject to this rule as it is not presented to the later phases of translation.". I think this statement may be "Exception". Do you think so?

Which of the following are compliant with rule 8.4?

Does Directive 4.6 cover the use of the plain “char” type for the storage and handling of character values?
For example

For rule 12.4, what definition of "constant expression" is used? If the definition is the one from the ISO C standards, that definition does not make it clear the example

Rule 10.8 Rationale 3rd paragraph,

"On a 16-bit machine the addition will be performed in 16 bits with the
result wrapping modulo-2 before it is cast to 32 bits."

It will be understood that.

"On a 16-bit machine the addition will be performed in 16 bits with the
result wrapping like modulo-2 before it is cast to 32 bits."

or

"On a 16-bit machine the addition will be performed in 16 bits with the
result wrapping modulo-2^16 before it is cast to 32 bits."

Which do you prefere?

Rule 15.3 states, "For the purposes of this rule, a switch-clause that does not consist of a compound statement is treated as if it were a block." What if the switch-clause did not end in an unconditional "break;"? While I understand such code would violate other rule(s), the point raised remains: would the following code violate this rule?

Dea all. I am a member of MISRA-C Study Group Japan.

There are two question/information.

1.
At Dir4.1 , Undefined C90 and C99 are listed.
I think C99 Undefined 15 is related C90 Undefined 90.
Are there any relation between Dir4.1 and C90 Undefined 90.

2.
The table of Appendix H.1, some differences from Dir4.1 Undefiend C90 and C99 list.
At Appendix H.1
C99 42 and 112 has "Dir4.1" , perhaps, C99 43 and 113.
C99 44, 45,48, 49, and C90 94 have no "Dir4.1".

Best Regards.
[email protected]

Hi

As with the exemplar suite for C:2004 is there, or will there be, an exemplar suite for C++:2008 and C:2012? I am wanting to access the abilities of some of my companies compilers and also third party static analysis tools and would find these very useful.

Thanks