Welcome to the MISRA discussion forum

Hi!

The rule states 

Quote:The increment (++) and decrement (--) operators should not be mixed with other operators in an expression.

Quote:Rule 5–0–6 (Required) An implicit integral or floating-point conversion shall not reduce the size of the underlying type.

Quote:Bit-field objects have an underlying type equivalent to an integral type of a size determined by their width. For example, a bit-field with width n, will have the same underlying type as a fundamental type with the same sign and width (if one exists).

Hi,

It's not clear if A16-0-1 allows using #define exclusively for creating header guards, or also for conditional file inclusion. Could you comment on that?

Example:

When using UDLs like the ones provided by std::chrono, for example, we get a violation of rule M7-3-4 when including the UDL namespace:

1. Partially deviate for this use case only
   
2. Explicitly import the required UDL(s)
   

Hi,

Rule A12-4-1 says:
"Destructor of a base class shall be public virtual, public override or protected non-virtual."

Does it apply in the context of private inheritance? In that case, it's not possible to obtain a pointer to the Base class, therefore mitigating the risks the rule is trying to prevent from.

Is there some hidden silliness in the spec that requires virtual methods to be declared final when the class itself is already final?  It would be redundant if so, or is my violation warning something I need to take up with the provider of our code scanner, because they got it wrong?

This forum is broken in my browser.  The thread header table is stuck at only about 25% of the screen width, while the other forum areas don't suffer that.  Smells like someone embedded problematic text in a thread title and the browser can't deal with it

This is a catch-all

try {;} catch(...) {;}

This is not

try {;} catch(std::exception&) {;}

Our validation tool incorrectly triggers the second case as an embedded catch-all violation in a submodule.

Anyone care to debate?

My take is that the rule checker was implemented by python/java folks who think c++ follows the concept of a base exception class.  It does not, since in c++ any type can be an exception parameter.

FWIW, my design heavily leverages c++ shared library .so inclusions which violate autosar eight from sunday even without the erroneous flag.

Hi All, I am calling RTE functions using microsar sip tools from vector and getting MISRA C 2012 rules violation:
1) The expression (vspSoundActivation_temp = Rte_CtApNvmWrapper_NV_VSPCfgParameters.VSP_SOUNDACTIVATIONTEMP_CF) , 0 uses the comma operator
2) The value returned by the assignment operator in vspSoundActivation_temp = Rte_CtApNvmWrapper_NV_VSPCfgParameters.VSP_SOUNDACTIVATIONTEMP_CF is being used

Is there any clear way of get rid of the messages?

I have created enum constant and using it only for assigment to uint8_t or if comparison of uint8_t to this constant, coverity from synopsys configured for MISRA C 2012 is generating rule violation: Type has tag xxxx_enum but that tag is never used. Is there any clear way of get rid of this message?