MISRA Discussion Forums
Rule 8.3 type qualifier - 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: 8.8 Declarations and defnitions (https://forum.misra.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=163)
+---- Thread: Rule 8.3 type qualifier (/showthread.php?tid=1282)

Rule 8.3 type qualifier - Motozo Mario Ikeda - 07-10-2016

"Type qualifier" and "Storage class specifier" are mentioned in Rule 8.3, but "Type specifier" is not.

Should we think "Type qualifier" includes "Type specifier"?

Thank you,
Mario Ikeda

Re: Rule 8.3 type qualifier - dg1980 - 11-10-2016

Doesn't rule 8.4 cover mixing type specifiers between declaration and definition?

Re: Rule 8.3 type qualifier - Motozo Mario Ikeda - 13-10-2016

Another idea was occurred.

I thought the "name" of the rule means "parameter name" and "typedef name".
But if this includes "type name", "Type specifier" is also mentioned in the rule.

Does this idea work?

Thank you,
Mario Ikeda

Re: Rule 8.3 type qualifier - misra-c - 09-12-2016

Declarations with differing "Type specifiers" fall into two categories:

1. Non-compatible type specifiers are always constraint errors and violate rule 1.1. e.g.
Code:
extern void fn1 ( int x );
  void  fn1 ( long x ) { ... }  /* constraint error violates rule 1.1 */
2. Compatible type specifiers are permitted by this rule as clarified in the exception. e.g.
Code:
extern void fn2 (int y );
  void fn2 ( signed int y ) { ... }  /*  Compliant by exception ( though violates Directive 4.6 ) */
Therefore, this rule does not place any restrictions on the use of the C type specifiers beyond the constraints of the C language.

The rule does place a restriction on the use of typedef "names" in declarations. They must be the same even if they are defined to have the same basic type.