Welcome to the MISRA discussion forum

Hi All,

The Rule 15.2 says:
"An unconditional break statement shall terminate every non-empty switch clause"
i.e. The last statement in every switch clause shall be a break statement, or if the switch clause is a compound statement, then the last statement in the compound statement shall be a break statement.

I understand this as:
"In a switch clause, whatever be the path traversed by the code, there shall be one break statement at the end of every path"

In a project I have the following code for which I am not getting any MISRA warning (for case 1). If my understanding is incorrect, then somebody please correct me.

Hello,

I have a question regarding Rule 12.5: "The operands of a logical && or || shall be primary-expressions."

I often use constructs of the form "(condition1) || (condition2) || ... || (condition n)" to test for illegal values of a set of input parameters in functions (see example below), which should be compliant as far as I understand the rule text without the need of extra parentheses to group the conditions (parenthesised expression, sequence of only logical ||). However, my analysis tool (flexelint, v9.00e) complains about this construct ("non-primary expression"). Did I got something wrong about the definition of "primary expression" or is this a false positive?

Thanks in advance for any answers.

Example:

Hello everybody,

Does anybody know if rule 109: "Overlapping storage shall not be used" is violated by having two pointer variables pointing on the same address??
My automated MISRA checker only looks for union declarations and definitions when checking this rule.


Thanks,
Klaus

I have a question concerning Rule 12.7: Bitwise operators shall not be applied to operands whose underlying type is signed.

I need to transmit a 7-bit signed integer (values are restricted -64 - +63). My current method, shown below, seems to be inconsistent with 12.7.

Regarding rule SLSF-19. In our expirience forcing 100% zoom factor push the designer to increment the nesting level of subsystem.
We tought that the main driver is the capability to have a readable model in one window instead of 100% zoom factor.

May you provide us comment/expirience on this rule ? Or a different interpretation of the rule probably I'm wrong.

Giacomo

It seems that the comments in mc2_12.06.c violate Rule 2.3:
if ( mc2_1206_boolean_a & mc2_1206_boolean_b ) /* Not Compliant -
/* bitwise operation on boolean operands */
{
;
}

Regards,

Andreas

Hello.
I am implementing an automated MISRA checker (MINT) and need some details regarding this rule.
Second part of rule 2.1 says "Furthermore, the signal name should be unique and not conflict with any other signal in the TargetLink model".
I am able to check this (only non-propagated labels included), however: what about library blocks? If a library block with at least one labelled line is used multiple times, then we have multiple signal lines labelled by the same label within the model.
I have also question: what is "TargetLink" model? Is it a Simulink model containing at least one TargetLink subsystem? Or is it the contents of TargetLink subsystem(s), no matter what is outside?
I would highly appreciate any comments.
Best regards,
Josef

Does rule #3-2-3 prohibit the use of forward declarations in separate files? For example, if a file, a.h, contained "class B;" and another file, c.h, #include'd a.h and contained a definition for class D which contained "friend class B;", would the rule permit such?

Was advisory #12.6 intended to apply to preprocessor directives at all? I only ask because the text does not specify one way or the other.

Was 12.6 intended to prohibit the use of the '!' operator on such code as