MISRA Discussion Forums
Question about 14.2 and the controlling variable - Printable Version

+- 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: 8.14 Control statement expressions (https://forum.misra.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=169)
+---- Thread: Question about 14.2 and the controlling variable (/showthread.php?tid=1228)

Question about 14.2 and the controlling variable - triboix - 23-02-2016

Hello,

14.2 states that the "controlling variable" must be of essentially boolean type.

Does that mean that the following code is non-compliant?

Code:
struct stuff
{
    uint32_t id;
};
struct stuff stuff_array[MAXSTUFF];

struct stuff* stuff_lookup(uint32_t id)
{
    uint8_t i;
    struct stuff* found = NULL;
    for (i = 0; (i < MAXSTUFF) && (found == NULL); i++) {
        if (stuff_array[i].id == id) {
            found = &(stuff_array[i]);
        }
    }
    return found;
}

Thanks a lot for any help!

Re: Question about 14.2 and the controlling variable - misra-c - 03-03-2016

Rule 14.2 includes the following statements:
Quote: Second clause which
* shall use the loop counter and optionally loop control flags
Quote: A loop control flag is defined as a single identifier denoting an object with essentially Boolean type that is used in the second clause.
"found" does not meet the criteria for a loop control flag and therefore is non-compliant with rule 14.2

Re: Question about 14.2 and the controlling variable - triboix - 06-03-2016

misra-c Wrote:Rule 14.2 includes the following statements:
Quote: Second clause which
* shall use the loop counter and optionally loop control flags
Quote: A loop control flag is defined as a single identifier denoting an object with essentially Boolean type that is used in the second clause.
"found" does not meet the criteria for a loop control flag and therefore is non-compliant with rule 14.2
All right, thanks a lot for the clarification!