On 22.06.2022 21:23, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > A quick question about Rule 8.1. > > > Michal sent a patch series to fix Xen against Rule 8.1 (here is a link > if you are interested: https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=165570851227125) > > Although we all generally agree that the changes are a good thing, there > was a question about the rule itself. Specifically, is the following > actually a violation? > > unsigned x; > > > Looking through the examples in the MISRA document I can see various > instances of more confusing and obvious violations such as: > > const x; > extern x; > > but no examples of using "unsigned" without "int". Do you know if it is > considered a violation?
And if it is, by implication would plain "long" also be a violation? Jan
