Hi Stefano, > On 30 Aug 2023, at 02:59, Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]> > > Add 14.3, with a project-wide deviations on if statements. > Add 14.4, clarifying that implicit conversions of integers, chars and > pointers to bool are allowed. > > Also take the opportunity to clarify that parameters of function pointer > types are expected to have names (Rule 8.2). > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]> > --- > docs/misra/rules.rst | 20 +++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/docs/misra/rules.rst b/docs/misra/rules.rst > index db30632b93..6cde4feeae 100644 > --- a/docs/misra/rules.rst > +++ b/docs/misra/rules.rst > @@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change. > * - `Rule 8.2 > <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_08_02.c>`_ > - Required > - Function types shall be in prototype form with named parameters > - - > + - Function pointer types shall have named parameters too.
I would just modify to Function and Function pointers types shall be ... > > * - `Rule 8.3 > <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_08_03.c>`_ > - Required > @@ -332,6 +332,24 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change. > - A loop counter shall not have essentially floating type > - > > + * - `Rule 14.3 > <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_14_03.c>`_ > + - Required > + - Controlling expressions shall not be invariant > + - Due to the extensive usage of IS_ENABLED, sizeof compile-time > + checks, and other constructs that are detected as errors by MISRA > + C scanners, managing the configuration of a MISRA C scanner for > + this rule would be unmanageable. Thus, this rule is adopted with > + a project-wide deviation on 'if' statements. The rule only > + applies to while, for, do ... while, ?:, and switch statements. Didn't we also said that we would accept while(0) and while(1) ? Also i agree with Jan, ? is really the same as if so we should not treat it differently. > + > + * - `Rule 14.4 > <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_14_04.c>`_ > + - Required > + - The controlling expression of an if statement and the controlling > + expression of an iteration-statement shall have essentially > + Boolean type > + - Implicit conversions of integers, pointers, and chars to boolean > + are allowed I am a bit wondering here what is remaining after this deviation. > + > * - `Rule 16.7 > <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_16_07.c>`_ > - Required > - A switch-expression shall not have essentially Boolean type > -- > 2.25.1 > Cheers Bertrand
