11-11-2009, 08:45 AM
The problem in that example is that the programmer is unaware of the signedness problems with the standard integer types, and that they are using high values close to the int16 maximum boundary without stopping to think twice. There is no MISRA rule solving this bug, afaik.
What will 10.6 solve is this case then? Nothing!
#define C_DECIMAL 32768U
#define C_HEXADECIMAL 0x8000U
~ is still performed on an uint16. Oops.
Now if you had written 0x8000L that would have solved the problem, but the L suffix is off-topic and has nothing to do with 10.6. My opinion remains the same, I cannot think of a scenario where rule 10.6 would acctually prevent bugs.
What will 10.6 solve is this case then? Nothing!
#define C_DECIMAL 32768U
#define C_HEXADECIMAL 0x8000U
~ is still performed on an uint16. Oops.
Now if you had written 0x8000L that would have solved the problem, but the L suffix is off-topic and has nothing to do with 10.6. My opinion remains the same, I cannot think of a scenario where rule 10.6 would acctually prevent bugs.
<t></t>