Clarification of Rule 17.4

[Graham Andrews]

I would suspect that was the case, but in the example for 17.4 it is contradicted by parameter p1. The example suggests that

p1[5]

is not compliant due to its declaration.

Code:

void my_fn(uint8_t *p1, uint8_t p2[])
{
...
    p1[5] = 0; /* not compliant - p1 was not declared as an array */
...
}

uint8_t a1[16];
uint8_t a2[16];

void test(void)
{
uint8_t *p;

   my_fn(a1,a2); /*actual p1 would be pointing at an array, but the static
                            check in my_fn still fails it */
   p = a1;
   my_fn(a1,p); /* Even worse p not an array, but not detected in
                           my_fn as actual parameter p2 declared as an array
                           type.  */
   p[5] = 0; /* ok, dynamically check */
}

The problem is the inconsistency between parameter passing and assignment. Parameters are statically checked using their declaration, other variables are dynamically checked by looking at the actual address they point at!