27-10-2016, 11:24 AM
This rule reports (e.g.) dead stores as they may be the sign of a defect.
As with your proposal for an exception to 0-1-3, there would be no way for a tool to know that the intent is for the value to be read by something other than the program.
You would, of course, also have to ensure that any objects have volatile qualification to ensure that the compiler does not optimise out what it sees as dead stores.
Looks like another candidate for a permit / deviation (which needs to include a requirement for volatile qualification).
As with your proposal for an exception to 0-1-3, there would be no way for a tool to know that the intent is for the value to be read by something other than the program.
You would, of course, also have to ensure that any objects have volatile qualification to ensure that the compiler does not optimise out what it sees as dead stores.
Looks like another candidate for a permit / deviation (which needs to include a requirement for volatile qualification).
<t></t>