+- 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: 6.16 Functions (https://forum.misra.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=47)
+---- Thread: 16.3 (/showthread.php?tid=824)
16.3 - beckschulze - 15-04-2011
Just to make sure, does rule 16.3 also apply to declarations of function pointers?
void (*pt2Function)(int);
Sould I give a name to the parameter?
Does that make sense at all?
Re: 16.3 - misra-c - 20-04-2011
Although the rule is worded in terms of declarations, the intention is that it should apply to all prototypes. A declaration of a function pointer should specify the parameter names, for example:
Code:
void (*pt2Function)(int size);Any type-casts to function pointer types should also specify the parameter names in the prototype.
Re: 16.3 - gs - 23-05-2012
So, would the following code, built upon the original example, be in violation of the rule?
Code:
pt2Function a;
void a( int something_other_than_the_word_size ) {
global_int = something_other_than_the_word_size;
}Re: 16.3 - misra-c - 25-05-2012
The example doesn't violate Rule 16.3 because the prototyped declaration of function a names its parameter.
However, the code doesn't seem to be valid anyway because:
- pt2Function is declared as an object, not a type in the original example, so cannot be used to declare the object a
- even if pt2Function were a type, a would be declared as an object and then redeclared as a function
Re: 16.3 - gs - 25-05-2012
Good point. Consider, however, the following:
Code:
typedef void (*pt2Function)(int stuff);
pt2Function a;
void b(int non_stuff)
{}
void c()
{
a = b;
}Re: 16.3 - misra-c - 27-05-2012
Both prototype declarations, pt2Function and b, name their parameters so both are compliant with Rule 16.3.