13-09-2011, 10:02 AM
The wording of Rule 16.9 is not precise. The word "preceding" could be interpreted as lexically preceding or semantically preceding. Under the lexical interpretation, the snippet is non-compliant but under the semantic interpretation it is compliant.
The intention of the rule was to prevent a function pointer from being generated when a function call was intended. GIven this, the semantic interpretation is possibly closer to the original intent.
The intention of the rule was to prevent a function pointer from being generated when a function call was intended. GIven this, the semantic interpretation is possibly closer to the original intent.
Posted by and on behalf of the MISRA C Working Group