Moderators: misra-c, david ward
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:26 pm
- Company: ITK Engineering AG
The third and last example of Rule 11.3 states that
Code: Select all
int * const * pcpi;
const int * const * pcpci;
pcpci = ( const int * const * ) pcpi;
is non-compliant because the unqualified pointer types are different, namely â€œpointer to const-qualified intâ€ and â€œpointer to intâ€
But the rule's amplification explicitly states, that
This rule applies to the unqualified types that are pointed to by the pointers.
and that the rule's goal is to prevent misalignment.
I do not understand why the example is non-compliant, as the cast only adds a const-qualifier and leaves the base type as it is (i.e. "int").
Could you please explain this a little further?
- Posts: 571
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:11 pm
pcpi is a "pointer
" to const qualified object of type "pointer to int
pcpci is a "pointer
" to const qualified object of type "pointer to const in
The unqualified object type for pcpi is "pointer to int
", which is different to the unqualified object type of pcpci which is "pointer to const int
The phrase "unqualified types" only refers to the top-level const/volatile qualification. See
for further discussions on unqualified pointer types.
The rule's rationale applies to more issues than misalignment as mentioned in the second paragraph of the rationale. Such an example could be
Code: Select all
const int ci = 10;
const int **ppci; /* pointer to pointer to const int */
ppci = (const int **)π
*ppci = &ci; /* pi now points to const int */
*pi = 0; /* undefined - attempt to update a const int */
Posted by and on behalf of
the MISRA C Working Group