13.3 Should side effects be allowed in comma expressions?

[Loïc]

In a comma expression (which is discouraged by another advisory rule, 12.3, but could still be used), there is a clear separation in term of execution between what comes before and what comes after the comma. Therefore, I think the rationale is not very strong in this case.

What would you think of relaxing 13.3 and making this example compliant (it would still be non-compliant with 12.3):

Code:

int f(int n, int*dest) {
    for (int i = 0 ; i<10 ; ++i, ++dest) { // Currently non-compliant
        *dest = i*i;
    }
}

[misra-c]

The example also violates Rule 14.2 - the third term can only modify the loop counter

The MISRA C WG agrees that this is an unnecessary violation of Rule 13.3, and will consider refinement [ID: 481 applies].