Misra 17.3 checks finds implicit function calls#7327
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
Author
wienans
force-pushed
the
feature/misra-17-3
branch
from
e045bcc to
4d160cf
Compare
danmar
reviewed
May 10, 2025
Collaborator
|
@wienans very sorry that it took so long for the review. this is way too long. :-( |
wienans
force-pushed
the
feature/misra-17-3
branch
from
4d160cf to
1c5165a
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
@danmar rebased the branch for possible merge if my answeres to the questions where good enough to accept it. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I am not sure why the misra check for 17.3 was reduced to while and if statements but i think that shouldn't be the case.
Now it should detect more / all functions which are implicitly called.
I had a bit of a issue with function pointer defintion as the tokens
cause the detection to trigger on the int16_t. But i filtered these false function pointer detection's explicitly.
I also updated the test with the expected errors. As C89 is used i needed to add more expected 17.3 as needed.
are all not present in C89. But even if we bump up to C11 this PR #7325 would need to be merged before hand to actually get all the needed Identifiers.