MISRA Discussion Forums - MISRA-C:2004 Exemplar Suite

Copyright

Mon, 05 Mar 2018 09:47:37 +0000

Hello,

I have one question regarding the copyright of the Exemplar Suite. I want to share this with my colleagues in my company, so am i allowed to do that?

We have an internal tool for sharing , can i upload these examples there?

It will be accessed in my company only.

Thank you.

Rule 13.2

Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:35:34 +0000

typedef unsigned char bool;
bool sensor_status;

if(sensor_status) /*Rule 13.2*/
{
....
}
Is this a violation of rule 13.2 or could it be considered as effectively boolean ( Boolean by enforcement ).

Will Exemplar Suite be updated for 2012?

Mon, 25 Nov 2013 22:27:37 +0000

Will the MISRA-C:2004 Exemplar Suite be updated for MISRA-C:2012?

Thanks!

SteveTj

MISRA C Exemplar suite : Compilation errors

Wed, 24 Oct 2012 07:35:18 +0000

I encountered a few cases in the exemplar suite(the list mentioned below) where in any standard compiler throws an error.
1. mc2_1101.c
2. mc2_1102.c
3. mc2_1903.c
4. mc2_1908.c
5. mc2_1914.c
6. mc2_1917.c

Are all the cases(but the ones which explicitly mention that the compiler is to fail) in the exemplar suite, in general, expected to
be successfully compiled by a "MISRA standard complaint" compiler?

Copyright

Wed, 02 May 2012 10:22:00 +0000

Hello,
I want to use the Exemplar Suite for the validation of a static code analyzer. Is it allowed to use copies of some of the files in my validation documentation? The documentation is only for internal use.

function

Thu, 06 Jan 2011 06:40:22 +0000

i am defining a fucntion and getting error just starting braces "Function declared at block scope"
'and Inserted ';' token in an attempt to continue parsing.

I have checked expalnation but didnt get proper resembles with my problem.

Example for 12.06 violates 2.3

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:36:28 +0000

It seems that the comments in mc2_12.06.c violate Rule 2.3:
if ( mc2_1206_boolean_a & mc2_1206_boolean_b ) /* Not Compliant -
/* bitwise operation on boolean operands */
{
;
}

Regards,

Andreas

Example for rule 10.1

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 07:37:23 +0000

as per the misra-c writtent in one of its reply that -
Rules 10.1 and 10.3 were designed with signed and unsigned expressions in mind. The treatment of enums, bitfields, chars, relational operators ( < , , >= ), logical operators ( &&, || ) and equality operators ( ==, != ) do not fit this model as yet.

But in Exempler test file mc2_1001.c line number 221
if ( u16r == 1 ) /* Not Compliant */

So if == operator do not fit in the 10.1 model then Why this line is Not Cpmpliant?

Incorrect comment in mc2_1703.c

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:27:40 +0000

There is a comment regarding line:

Code:
else if ( ( &array_12 [ 12 ] - &array_12 [ index_1 ] ) > 0 )

The comment states that this line violates rule 17.4, which is not the case, as the variable array_12 has been declared as an array.
It should state that there is a violation of rule 21.1 regarding array bound errors.

Incorrect comment in mc2_2001.c

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:01:21 +0000

In line 42

Quote:/* 7.13.3 to* where * is a lower case letter */

should read

Quote:/* 7.13.2 to* where * is a lower case letter */

i think.

Bill Forbes.

12.6 boolean expression assigned to int example

Wed, 14 May 2008 09:15:00 +0000

Code:
uint16_t mc2_1206_x;

   uint16_t mc2_1206_y;

   uint16_t mc2_1206_z;

   mc2_1206_x = ( mc2_1206_y == mc2_1206_z ); /* Not compliant - mc2_1206_x is not effectively boolean */

This code has been marked as violation of rule 12.6 but I fail to see why. There are no (&&, || and !) operators so the first part of the rule does not apply. The boolean expression is used as operand of "=" so the second part of the rule is complied to as well.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Rule 12.2 and "nested assignment statements"

Wed, 14 May 2008 07:42:12 +0000

Example from mc2_1203.c:

Code:
mc2_1203_x = sizeof ( mc2_1203_a = 1234U );

Is this code also a violation of rule 12.2 "nested assignment statements"?

Rule 8.3 - incorrect example or missing comment

Mon, 12 May 2008 13:04:49 +0000

Function declaration in mc2_0803.h:

Code:
extern void mc2_0803_2 ( my_s32bit_int param0803 );

Function definition in mc2_0803_2.c:

Code:
void mc2_0803_2 ( my_other_s32bit_int param0803 )

The types are different (different typedef names) - either there should be "Not Compliant" comment or the type should be changed.

Rule 19.9 - incorrect comment in mc2_1909.c?

Fri, 09 May 2008 14:21:10 +0000

mc2_1909.c contains following code:

Code:
#define SUM(A,B,C) ((A) + (B) + (C)) /* Violates Rule 17.4 */

Rule 17.4 is "Array indexing shall be the only allowed form of pointer arithmetic." - the code does not seem to be violation of this rule.

Rule 4.1 Question

Thu, 01 May 2008 14:49:12 +0000

Hello,

I was just wondering if anybody has come across a possible discrepancy with the Exemplar Test suite 4.1. In the MISRA 2004 standard, Rule 4.1 states that "Only those escape sequences that are defined in the ISO C Standard shall be used". Section 5.2.2 of the ISO C standard lists valid escape sequences, but section 6.4.4.4 in the ISO C Standard also further defines escape clauses that are used.

The Rule 4.1 test case lists hexadecimal escape clauses as being non-compliant, but section 6.4.4.4 in the ISO C Standard indicates that hexadecimal clauses are valid.

I am just wondering if anybody has considered this is as a mistake in the test suite?

Thanks,
Jerry