Given the headline text of MISRA C++ 2008 Rule 6-1-1, MISRA C++ 2023 Rule 9.6.2 seems to be the equivalent rule in this case. MISRA C++ 2023 Rule 9.6.2 includes the following non-compliant example:
This example seems to echo an amplification made in the MISRA C 2012 Rule 15.3 (that has the same headline text as MISRA C++ 2008 Rule 6-1-1), which states:
It would be greatly appreciated if you could clarify whether the above example was also intended to violate MISRA C++ Rule 6-1-1.
Code:
switch(i)
{
case 0:
if(x < y)
goto L3; // Non-compliant
break;
case 1:
L3:
break;
}This example seems to echo an amplification made in the MISRA C 2012 Rule 15.3 (that has the same headline text as MISRA C++ 2008 Rule 6-1-1), which states:
Quote:For the purposes of this rule, a switch-clause that does not consist of a compound statement is treated as if it were a block.
It would be greatly appreciated if you could clarify whether the above example was also intended to violate MISRA C++ Rule 6-1-1.