MISRAC2012-Rule-16.1 : The body of this switch statement is not well-formed

Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:53:08 +0000

Hello everyone,

I have 2 functions below, the top one, I get a MISRAC2012-Rule-16.1 warning, the second one I do not get the warning, the only difference between them is where 'i' is declared.
Is the warning I am seeing correct? If it is why is it not allowed?
I have looked through the 16.x rules and I could not see anything that suggested I could it was banned.
I am using IAR C-STAT to do the analysis.

Code:
/***************

 * I get the following warning on this switch statement: MISRAC2012-Rule-16.1 : The body of this switch statement is not well-formed.

 ***************/

uint32_t func(uint32_t num)

{

   uint32_t result;

   switch(num)

   {

      case 0:

      {

         result = 123U;

         break;

      }

      case 1:

      {

         result = 567U;

         for (uint32_t i = 0U; i < 10U; i++)

         {

            result = i + result;

         }

         break;

      }

      default:

      {

         result = 0;

         break;

      }

   }

   return result;

}

uint32_t func_b(uint32_t num)

{

   uint32_t result;

   switch(num)

   {

      case 0:

      {

         result = 123U;

         break;

      }

      case 1:

      {

         uint32_t i;

         result = 567U;

         /***************

          * If I declare 'i' outside of the loop this warning goes away: MISRAC2012-Rule-16.1 : The body of this switch statement is not well-formed.

          ***************/

         for (i = 0U; i < 10U; i++)

         {

            result = i + result;

         }

         break;

      }

      default:

      {

         result = 0;

         break;

      }

   }

   return result;

}

Thanks,
James

MISRA switch staement

Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:20:10 +0000

Hi everyone,
Can anyone give an example of MISRA-C "switch" statement pls....

Let me confirm the requirement of Rule 16.1

Mon, 20 Feb 2017 06:17:52 +0000

Dear All,

Is the following code the violation of Rule 16.1?
The code has statements after the first break statement in case 10.

// from here
typedef unsigned int uint32_t;
extern uint32_t func_a( uint32_t x );
uint32_t func_a( uint32_t x )
{
uint32_t rtn = 0;
switch( x )
{
case 10:
break;
rtn = 50; /* Rule 16.1 violation? */
break;
default:
break;
}
return rtn;
}
// to here

Best regards,

MISRA Discussion Forums - 8.16 Switch statements

MISRAC2012-Rule-16.1 : The body of this switch statement is not well-formed

MISRA switch staement

Let me confirm the requirement of Rule 16.1