+- 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: 8.5 Identifers (https://forum.misra.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=160)
+---- Thread: Rule 5.4: Macro identifier (/showthread.php?tid=1187)
Rule 5.4: Macro identifier - Polyspacer - 16-06-2015
I have a question regarding rule 5.4: Which of the following #defines is violating this rule?
Code:
#define engine_exhaust_gas_temperature_high_raw egt_r
#define engine_exhaust_gas_temperature_high_scaled egt_s
#define x 0
#define x 0
#ifndef ABCDE
#define DAI_AGK_SEC_1BIT_RAM_START
#endif
#ifndef FGHIJ
#define DAI_AGK_SEC_1BIT_RAM_START
#endif
unsigned long int A;
unsigned short int Con = 0;
void main(void)
{
/*5.4*/
#ifdef DAI_AGK_SEC_1BIT_RAM_START
A = Con;
#endif
A = x;
}The 1st and 2nd #define are similar to the example given in the MISRA-C guideline. Hence, the 2nd #define violates the rule.
The 3rd and 4th #define are identical. Therefore, the 4th #define violates the rule.
The 5th and 6th #define are identical as well. Does the 6th #define violate the rule? According to the glossary, the macro name is a macro identifier...
Re: Rule 5.4: Macro identifier - misra-c - 25-06-2015
The amplification states
Quote: This rule requires that, when a macro is being defined, its name be distinct from:Therefore there will only be a violation of Rule 5.4 on DAI_AGK_SEC_1BIT_RAM_START if both ABCDE and FGHIJ are not defined.
- the names of the other macros that are currently defined;