20-01-2014, 02:45 PM
What does "satisfy the semantics" mean in the MISRA reply? I believe that the "semantics" sections of the standard specify the meaning of a code construct rather than specifying a set of conditions that must be met.
Does it perhaps mean that the expression must not contain any undefined behaviour, such as might be caused by violating a "shall" or "shall not" appearing outside of a constraint?
If so, does this still apply even for implementations which provide a well-defined behaviour for something that the standard leaves as undefined? I'm guessing the answer is "yes" but this point, made in the original posting, hasn't been explicitly answered.
Does it perhaps mean that the expression must not contain any undefined behaviour, such as might be caused by violating a "shall" or "shall not" appearing outside of a constraint?
If so, does this still apply even for implementations which provide a well-defined behaviour for something that the standard leaves as undefined? I'm guessing the answer is "yes" but this point, made in the original posting, hasn't been explicitly answered.
<t></t>