I've been running into another MISRA C:2023 rule violation for the following code:
typedef unsigned char uint8_t;
typedef unsigned short uint16_t;
extern volatile uint8_t REG_DATA_IN;
uint8_t read( const uint16_t adr )
{ uint8_t io_data = REG_DATA_IN; return io_data;}
void rgBusSetBit( const uint16_t adr, const uint8_t mask)
{ const uint8_t var = read( adr ); write( adr, (var | mask));}
Obviously the read function returns uint8_t, but the assignment to const uint8_t var seems to violate rule 10.6.
From my point of view both should be of the same essential type and not an MISRA issue.
Could you please have a look on this?
I've been running into another MISRA C:2023 rule violation for the following code:
Obviously the read function returns uint8_t, but the assignment to const uint8_t var seems to violate rule 10.6.
From my point of view both should be of the same essential type and not an MISRA issue.
Could you please have a look on this?