Welcome to the MISRA discussion forum

What is the essential type of a parenthesised expression?

For example: ( 3 U ) has a standard type of "unsigned int". Is the essential type of the parenthesised expression "unsigned int" or "unsigned char"

I found a typo in the MISRA C:2012 addenum.

Page 6, rule 2004:19.4 compared with 2012:20.4

Quote:Rule 14.6 requires that a macro with more than 1
statement does not get expanded in an iteration or
selection statements.

In rule 2.1 sample code,

default:
{
/*
* This default will only be ......
* holds a value that is not ......
*/
}

The comments here,there are not written neither compliant nor non-compliant.
But I have understood to be compliant from the comment.
Is it correct?

Best Regards.

Hello

I have a question for the Rule8.5 etc.

The Rule8.5 in MISRAC_2004 was deleted in MISRAC_2012.

In MISRA C:2012 RuleMappings,
Rule8.5's description is
[The problems associated with --- dealt with by other rules].

I think that "other rules" means "Rule8.4, Rule8.5, and Rule8.6 in MISRAC 2012".

Is my opinion correct?

Please teach me your idea and rule numbers.

Best Regards,
Kumiko Itoh

I have mixed feeling for comply with MISRA-C 2004 because I use Autocode generator such as TargetLink and I think it is reasonable that they make efforts to comply with MISRA-AC such as MISRA-AC ACG, MISRA-AC TL and MISRA-AC SLSF.

So I don’t know which stand (MISRA-C or MISRA-AC) I have to conform to.
I want to know which standard the people using hand-coding comply with and the people using MBD(Model-based development with AutoCode Generator) comply with.
If possible, please give me some opinions

A cast should not be performed between a pointer type and an integral type, this casts from type "unsigned int" to "uint32_t volatile *" (MISRA C 2004 rule 11.3)
In two cases this error occurs on my system (ARM Cortex M3 with IAR workbench and MISRA check from IAR):
1. Access to registers.
2. Access to RAM (during a cyclic RAM test).

Is there any way conform to MISRA C2004 for the following code?

Who needs to be contacted about an inaccurate link on the Links page of the web site (http://www.misra.org.uk/Links/tabid/63/Default.aspx)? Telelogic was acquired by IBM in 2008, so this entry should now read "IBM Rational" and the link should be http://www-01.ibm.com/software/rational/.

Thanks

20.1 (req): %s: Reserved identifiers, macros and functions in the standard library, shall not be defined, redefined or undefined.
20.2 (req): %s: The names of standard library macros, objects and functions shall not be reused.

As per the rule 20.1, Reserved identifiers should not be defined, redefined or undefined.
I am getting the violation of MISRA 20.2 for the below example:

For the declaration,
int for;
'for' is the reserve identifier. It is re-defined as variable declaration and it is not used in any standard library.
Hence it should violates the MISRA rule 20.1 and not MISRA rule 20.2.

Please explain the difference between MISRA 20.1 and 20.2 rules with suitable examples.

I'm not 100% sure on the interpretation of rule 6.2 when it comes to using "unsigned char" values as labels for switch case.

Example:

MISRA is pleased to announce that a set of code examples for MISRA C:2012 is available to download. These can be found in the “Resources” section of this Bulletin Board (free registration is required to access this area).

This set of files is intended to illustrate issues addressed by the MISRA C rules as expressed in MISRA C:2012 Guidelines for the use of the C language in critical systems. The code examples are mainly taken from the example sections in the MISRA C:2012 guidelines. It is not intended to be an exhaustive test suite and should not be used as such; however they may help users of the document understand compliant and non-compliant code.

A more comprehensive exemplar suite may be produced in the future.