+- MISRA Discussion Forums (https://forum.misra.org.uk)
+-- Forum: MISRA C (https://forum.misra.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: MISRA C:2012 and MISRA C:2023 guidelines (https://forum.misra.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=21)
+---- Forum: 8.11 Pointer type conversions (https://forum.misra.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=166)
+---- Thread: Initialization of the form { 0 } in relation to Rule 11.9 (/showthread.php?tid=1066)
Initialization of the form { 0 } in relation to Rule 11.9 - rgamble - 15-06-2014
Is the following example intended to be a violation of Rule 11.9?
Code:
#include
void f(void) {
uint16_t * var[10] = { 0 }; // violates 11.9?
}While a strict interpretation seems to suggest this a technically a violation, Rule 9.2 specifically allows for an initializer of the form { 0 } which indicates that this (being a violation of 11.9) may not have been intended.
Re: Initialization of the form { 0 } in relation to Rule 11. - misra-c - 25-06-2014
An exception should be present in rule 11.9 to permit the initialisation of array of pointers with "{0}". This is consistent with rule 9.2 and the exception to rule 10.3 for array of floats.
Code:
float_32 farr_ok1[3] = {0}; // compliant
float_32 farr_ok2[3] = {0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f}; // compliant
float_32 farr_nok[3] = {0.0f}; // not compliant with Rule 9.3
int_32 * ptr_ok1[3] = {0}; // compliant
int_32 * ptr_ok2[3] = {NULL, NULL, NULL}; // compliant
int_32 * ptr_nok[3] = {NULL}; // not compliant with Rule 9.3