Rule 11.9: Does this struct initialization violate rule 11.9?

[fst-mra]

Dear community,

our analysis tool reports the following struct initialization to violate rule 11.9 (macro NULL is the only permitted form of integer null pointer constant):

static const myType myStruct = {
64,
{0xa0,0xa0,0xa0,0xa0,0xa0,0xa0,0xa0,0xa0,0xa0,0xa0,0xa0,0xa0,0xa0,0xa0,0xa0,0xa0},
0
};

with:
typedef unsigned short uint16;
typedef unsigned char uint8;
typedef struct {
uint16 myVariable01;
uint8 myArray [16];
uint8 myVariable02;
} myType;

Unfortunately, neither from the tool documentation nor from the MISRA documentation we can conclude why this initialization would be non-compliant. Also we cannot see what the risk behind this deviation would be. Is this deviation false-positive? Does it introduce any portability, maintainability etc. risk?

Thanks for your support.
Frank

[dg1980]

Code:

typedef struct {
uint16 myVariable01;
uint8 myArray [16];
uint8 myVariable02;
} myType;

Since myType does not contain a pointer and NULL macro is not even used in initialization, it is a false positive IMHO.
A violation would look like this:

Code:

uint8* ptr = 0;// use NULL for pointer initialization

[misra-c]

There is no null pointer constant in this example and hence no violation of rule 11.9