Welcome to the MISRA discussion forum

Hi

Two questions about this rule:

1. Have somebody examples short for function-like macros?
2. When is a macro funktion-like?

best regards,
Manni

Hi

Question about Rule 12.9: The unary minus operator shall not be applied to an expression whose underlying type is unsigned.

Hi

I want to start writing a helping document and tutorial about MISRA-C:2004 rules. The document should contain the following points.

1. Reasons for specific MISRA-C rules. (Why is it important to observe the rule)
2. Howto handle specific rules
3. Howto conceive specific rules
4. Exampels for breaches of the specific rules, and how to solve it. (with example, too)

Are there any good sources and publications, which helping to write such a tutorial?

best regards,
Manni

EDIT:
I know that there are explanations like this in miscra-c rules included. But I mean more comprehensive explanation.

This new forum has been set up for asking questions about and discussing MISRA's \"Software Readiness for Production\" guidelines.

I am trying to understand this rule and need someone to clarify its exact meaning.

which of the following are violations of Rule 12.6?

Need clarification on rule 5.1 (equivalenet to rule 11 in MISRA C1):

Does this rule disallow to use identifier that has more than 31 characters? Even though the first 31 characters are guaranteed to be distinct.

Thanks,

quangp

According to source code below, please kindly help me to clear understanding whether where are the implicitly cast and they will cast to what type?

Warning: Unsuffixed integral literal implicitly cast to another type.


Source code
struct {
unsigned char multiple: 1;
unsigned char event: 1;
unsigned char checksum: 1;
unsigned char conditional: 1;
} flag;
...

void transmit(void)
{
…
if (flag.conditional == 1) { [color=red][b]

Is the usage of ternary operator (? :) inside a C macro violation of rule 19.4. For e.g. the following function-like macro

#define abs(x) (((x) >= 0) ? (x) : -(x))

According to Rule 19.4 - C macros shall only expand to a braced initialiser, a constant, a parenthesized expression, a type qualifier, a storage class specifier or a do-while construct.

Does the above function-like macro conform to rule 19.4?

I have some doubt about the integral promotion whether how integral promotion's rule perform with the unsuffixed constant (hexadecimal).
Example:

16bit ECU
0xffff -----> Will it promote to \"int\" or \"unsigned int\"?
0xffffffff -----> Will it promote to \"int\" or \"unsigned int\"?

32bit ECU
0xffff -----> Will it promote to \"int\" or \"unsigned int\"?
0xffffffff -----> Will it promote to \"int\" or \"unsigned int\"?

Who know how does it perform with hexadecimal.
Please kindly give me the answer.

Thanks in advance,
Warawut.

The rule 1.1 deals with limits defined in chapter 5.2.4 of ISO-9899:1990 norm.

But for the #include preprocessing directive, the 9899:1999 (and so, I suspect that the C90 is more restrictive) specify in chapter 6.10.2 some restriction (limits) about the sequence placed between the \" \" or < > delimiters:

The implementation shall provide unique mappings for sequences consisting of:
- one or more digits (no case sensitive)
- followed by a period
- followed by a single letter.
- The mapping is restricting to eight significant characters before the period.

So if the sequence between \" and < > delimiters is specified, then the header file names are impacted.

I would like to know if it is MISRA compliant to have a header file name with more than 8 characters before the period ?
(Example: FooComponent_Api.h)


Thanks in advance for your answer.