18-06-2012, 05:32 PM
The version without the & operator is certainly a violation of Rule 16.9. The rule requires that any use of an identifier that designates a function (stm_Startup in the example) have a & operator unless the identifier is being used to designate a function in a function call. So, the Tasking tool is correct to diagnose a violation of Rule 16.9.
The version with the & operator is legal C. As described in the C90 standard, Section 6.2.2.1, a function designator is converted to a pointer to function except when it appears as the operand of a sizeof operator or a & operator. Some tools therefore diagnose an & operator applied to an identifier that designates a function because the & operator is redundant in this case. This probably explains why PC-lint issues a diagnostic.
You would need to ask your support contact for PC-lint why it is not diagnosing a violation of Rule 16.9 for the version without the & operator. It might be that the tool needs to be configured differently.
The version with the & operator is legal C. As described in the C90 standard, Section 6.2.2.1, a function designator is converted to a pointer to function except when it appears as the operand of a sizeof operator or a & operator. Some tools therefore diagnose an & operator applied to an identifier that designates a function because the & operator is redundant in this case. This probably explains why PC-lint issues a diagnostic.
You would need to ask your support contact for PC-lint why it is not diagnosing a violation of Rule 16.9 for the version without the & operator. It might be that the tool needs to be configured differently.
Posted by and on behalf of the MISRA C Working Group