17-11-2016, 05:34 PM
The following is the example reported for Rule 2.2 (dead code):
I'm not sure that last but one statement represents a non-compliance. In fact, the expression *p++ is treated as *(p++), as the precedence of postfix ++ is higher than *. Indeed the result of * operator is not used, but p value results permanently increased, and p is a global variable. How can be stated that it is not compliant, alias dead code, i.e. "...whose removal would not affect program behaviour"?
Quote:In this example, it is assumed that the object pointed to by p is used in other functions.
Code:
extern volatile uint16_t v;
extern char *p;
void f (void ) {
uint16_t x;
(void) v; /* Compliant - v is accessed for its side effect * and the cast to void is permitted by exception */
(int32_t) v; /* Non-compliant - the cast operator is dead */
v >> 3; /* Non-compliant - the >> operator is dead */
x = 3; /* Non-compliant - the = operator is dead * - x is not subsequently read */
*p++; /* Non-compliant - result of * operator is not used */
(*p)++; /* Compliant - *p is incremented */
}I'm not sure that last but one statement represents a non-compliance. In fact, the expression *p++ is treated as *(p++), as the precedence of postfix ++ is higher than *. Indeed the result of * operator is not used, but p value results permanently increased, and p is a global variable. How can be stated that it is not compliant, alias dead code, i.e. "...whose removal would not affect program behaviour"?
<t></t>