Re: shame on MISRA
- From: Robert Adsett <sub2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Apr 2007 06:47:55 -0700
On Apr 23, 5:46 am, Marcin Wolcendorf <wolce...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Marcin Wolcendorf <wolce...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 08:58:18 -0700, Arlet wrote:
On Apr 22, 12:44 pm, Marcin Wolcendorf <wolce...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
...No. It doesn't. One of the rules states (I don't have them in front
of me), that you can't use signed constants (like -1U) to set
unsigned variables. -1U is a nice value of all 1s binary,
convenient for masking. Well, you can get
Just use ~0U
True :).
I can't recall the reason, why I didn't use it.
Yeah, now I can. It just doesn't matter. If I use ~0U it will trigger
MISRA-C rule 10.1 (An integer constant expression with negative value is
Maybe I'm being exceptionally dense this morning but What integer
constant expression with a negative value?
being converted to an unsigned type.) just as -1U does. No difference
from MISRA-C check point of view. It is a better way- logical operators
only, and this is a logical value- but it is not enough.
Is this an automated check against the rules or a hand check?
Robert
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: shame on MISRA
- From: Marcin Wolcendorf
- Re: shame on MISRA
- References:
- Re: shame on MISRA
- From: Marcin Wolcendorf
- Re: shame on MISRA
- From: Arlet
- Re: shame on MISRA
- From: Marcin Wolcendorf
- Re: shame on MISRA
- From: Marcin Wolcendorf
- Re: shame on MISRA
- Prev by Date: Re: Timestamp of periodic frames on CANalyzer.
- Next by Date: Re: CANbus consultant?
- Previous by thread: Re: shame on MISRA
- Next by thread: Re: shame on MISRA
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|