12-04-2011, 09:30 AM
The initialization:
uint8_t d = ((uint8_t) 0x1U) | ((uint8_t) 0x2U);
should, according to the MISRA-C guidelines, generate an error for rule 10.1. The initializer, i.e. the integer constant expression, has the underlying type of uint8_t, but that type is overruled by the explicit rule for integer constant expressions in 6.10.4 that says that the signedness/unsignedness of the underlying type should be taken from the actual type of the integer constant expression, but only if it is signed or unsigned int. In this case it is signed int. Giving the rule 10.1 breakage. Is this really the intention of the MISRA-C guidelines for integer constant expressions?
uint8_t d = ((uint8_t) 0x1U) | ((uint8_t) 0x2U);
should, according to the MISRA-C guidelines, generate an error for rule 10.1. The initializer, i.e. the integer constant expression, has the underlying type of uint8_t, but that type is overruled by the explicit rule for integer constant expressions in 6.10.4 that says that the signedness/unsignedness of the underlying type should be taken from the actual type of the integer constant expression, but only if it is signed or unsigned int. In this case it is signed int. Giving the rule 10.1 breakage. Is this really the intention of the MISRA-C guidelines for integer constant expressions?
<t></t>