Re: shame on MISRA
- From: Robert Adsett <sub2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:54:44 -0400
In article <f0imuo$aer$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Marcin Wolcendorf
says...
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.
I still don't see an integer constant expression with a negative value.
OTOH any reason not to set up the variable during initialization (since
it appears not to be const)?
some_variable = ~some_variable;
That should also get rid of the casts.
Robert
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
- 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
- From: Robert Adsett
- Re: shame on MISRA
- From: Marcin Wolcendorf
- Re: shame on MISRA
- Prev by Date: Re: Question about strange flash problem
- Next by Date: Re: Free Hardware
- Previous by thread: Re: shame on MISRA
- Next by thread: Re: shame on MISRA
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|