MISRA Discussion Forums
Rule 8.11(req) - Clarification required - 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: 2004 rules (https://forum.misra.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+---- Forum: 6.8 Declarations and Definitions (https://forum.misra.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=35)
+---- Thread: Rule 8.11(req) - Clarification required (/showthread.php?tid=286)

Rule 8.11(req) - Clarification required - Hammer - 10-07-2006

Dear Misra

I seek clarification on the particular meaning of this rule. From the rule statment I take it that everything declared at file scope and only used internally should have the static storage class specifier applied.

For example the following would be a violation, ignoring the violation of rule 8.7.
Code:
int32_t var=0; /*VIOLATION, static should be applied*/

int32_t main(void)
{
var++;
return(var);
}

however I take a different meaning from the additional description given. I feel it is more related to the mixing use of extern and static.

Code:
extern int32_t var1;
static int32_t var1=0; /*Violation??*/

I would like to know which violation represents the meaning of this rule.

- misra-c - 23-08-2006

MISRA-C meeting 23-8-2006

Code:
int32_t var=0; /*VIOLATION, static should be applied*/

int32_t main(void)
{
var++;
return(var);
}


We agree - this violates 8.10 only.

Code:
extern int32_t var1;
static int32_t var1=0; /*Violation 8.11*/

This violates 8.11.