Initialization of the form { 0 } in relation to Rule 11.9

[rgamble]

Is the following example intended to be a violation of Rule 11.9?

Code:

#include

void f(void) {
    uint16_t * var[10] = { 0 };  // violates 11.9?
}

While a strict interpretation seems to suggest this a technically a violation, Rule 9.2 specifically allows for an initializer of the form { 0 } which indicates that this (being a violation of 11.9) may not have been intended.

[misra-c]

An exception should be present in rule 11.9 to permit the initialisation of array of pointers with "{0}". This is consistent with rule 9.2 and the exception to rule 10.3 for array of floats.

Code:

float_32 farr_ok1[3] = {0};                 // compliant
float_32 farr_ok2[3] = {0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f};  // compliant
float_32 farr_nok[3] = {0.0f};              // not compliant with Rule 9.3

int_32 * ptr_ok1[3] = {0};                  // compliant
int_32 * ptr_ok2[3] = {NULL, NULL, NULL};   // compliant
int_32 * ptr_nok[3] = {NULL};               // not compliant with Rule 9.3