Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Macros with not distinct parameters names: raise rule 5.4?

Should the following raise MISRA C:2012 rule 5.4 ?


and more generally:
#define X123456789_123456789_123456789_AA(X123456789_123456789_123456789_AB) f(X123456789_123456789_123456789_AB)

I thought that not since there is no confusion when parameters are substituted because the macro is not active.
Is it right?
Many thanks!
Your example is compliant with rule 5.4. This rule only requires that the macro being defined has a name that is distinct from
  • the names of other macros that are currently defined
  • the names of macro parameters in other macros that are currently defined.
Posted by and on behalf of the MISRA C Working Group

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)