Welcome to the MISRA discussion forum

Do rules #6.4 and 6.4 apply to unnamed bit fields? I would think, since the such fields are unnamed, one would not easily access them.

Is this code compliant with rule #2.1?

It is said in rules 12.1 and 12.5 that 12.5 is a special case of 12.1.

However, in rule 12.1, it is stated that no parentheses are required for the operand of a unary operator
while in rule 12.5 it is said that the operands of the logical operators && and || must be primary expressions;
the latter is exemplified in 12.5 with the following example:

if ( x && ( !y ) ) /* make !y primary */

So for rule 12.1, is something like:
if ( x && !y )
...
a violation?

Hi,
I am using IBM logiscope to bring a pic24 project to MISRA compliance.

Due to the use of unions in the standard PIC header file (which maps all the registers to the locations in the linker) I have created my own local register mappings whenever needed.

i.e. for PORT configuration source, the header contains

Hi,
I am finding a violation (with IBM logiscope) when i use an array within a structure.

so my structure is:

We're working on a tool to perform formal verification of programs written in MISRA-C 2004. The idea is to annotate MISRA C functions (e.g. by writing preconditions) so that we can prove automatically that array indices are always in bounds, null pointers are never deferenced, division is never by zero, and so on. Then we prove that the callers of those functions meet the preconditions... and so on up to the main program. So we aim to prove compliance with the "hard" MISRA rules like 1.2, 17.1, 17.6 and of course 21.1. We'll also be able to prove other things, such as safety properties that can be expressed functionally.

I'm interested to know the extent to which MISRA-C users are prepared to write extra annotations to get this increased level of assurance. Please reply if you have a view on this, if possible saying what safety standard (if any) you are working to.

I've also started a blog about this approach, which you can find at http://blog.eschertech.com.

Regards - David

The documentation for MISRA C++ rule #4-5-3 includes the following:

Quote:The relational operators = may be used to determine if a character (or wide character) represents a digit.

The commentary in the MISRA guidelines leaves the answer to this question unclear in my opinion due to the wording

Quote:Numeric values/data are numbers such as 0, 5, 23, \x10, -3.

The commentary for rules #6.1 and #6.2 state,

Quote:[T]he second and third operands of the ternary conditional operator may both be of plain char type.

The commentary for rule 6.1 and 6.2 states

Quote:The permissible operators on plain char types are the simple assignment operator (=), equality operators (==, !=) and explicit casts to integral types. Additionally, the second and third operands of the ternary conditional operator may both be of plain char type.