+- MISRA Discussion Forums (https://forum.misra.org.uk)
+-- Forum: MISRA C++ (https://forum.misra.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Forum: MISRA C++:2008 rules (https://forum.misra.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+---- Forum: 6.8 Declarators (C++) (https://forum.misra.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=137)
+---- Thread: Rule 8-5-2: what about strings? (/showthread.php?tid=1394)
Rule 8-5-2: what about strings? - jocob - 10-01-2018
struct Test
{
char str1[20];
char str2[20];
};
struct Test t =
{
"Hello",
"World"
};
LDRA flags this with 397 S (Array initialisation has insufficient items.) violation of 8-5-2 (Braces shall be used to indicate and match the structure in the non-zero initialization of arrays and structures.)
Looking at the details of the rule in the guidelines, I see why: "The non-zero initialization of arrays or structures requires an explicit initializer for each element."
It seems there should be an exception for initializing a character array with the string syntax, since:
a. the unused characters are implicitly null character 0
b. there is no MISRA compliant way to explicitly add null characters to a "string"
I think MISRA C 2004 has a similar problem, but I haven't looked at 2012 yet.
Re: Rule 8-5-2: what about strings? - dg1980 - 11-01-2018
Hi,
what´s the output of LDRA if you use this ugly alternative?
Code:
struct Test t =
{
{'H', 'e', 'l', 'l', 'o', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0'},
{'W', 'o', 'r', 'l', 'd', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0', '\0'}
};Re: Rule 8-5-2: what about strings? - misra cpp - 18-01-2018
You are correct that the example initializing using "Hello" etc. is a violation of 8-5-2 (and dg1980's example padded with '\0's is compliant). However, the first example would be compliant under MISRA C:2012 - it has the exception for strings.
The next issue of MISRA C++ aims to remove unnecessary differences between MISRA C and C++, and this is likely to be a rule that will be modified for that reason - though they may still not be identical because there is a semantic difference between C and C++ for a statement like
char str[4] = "abcd";
(its legal in C but a constraint error in C++)
As a matter of etiquette, we don't encourage discussion of particular tool's behaviour on the Bulleting Board - good or bad