Re: shame on MISRA

Hi,

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 06:47:55 -0700, Robert Adsett wrote:

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:

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?

Well, having ~0U is not quite enough; I want to use it :). So I did:
uint16_t some_variable = (uint16_t)(~0U);
(effectively- all #defines, ...) to have 0xffff in some_variable. It was
enough to trigger the rule.

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?

It is an automated check. I'm not sure enough that my mind won't bend the
rule, to do a hand check, sorry ;).

M.
.