Pour obtenir une clé
d'essai remplissez le formulaire ci-dessous
Demandez des tariffs
Nouvelle licence
Renouvellement de licence
--Sélectionnez la devise--
USD
EUR
RUB
* En cliquant sur ce bouton, vous acceptez notre politique de confidentialité

Free PVS-Studio license for Microsoft MVP specialists
To get the licence for your open-source project, please fill out this form
** En cliquant sur ce bouton, vous acceptez notre politique de confidentialité.

I am interested to try it on the platforms:
** En cliquant sur ce bouton, vous acceptez notre politique de confidentialité.

Message submitted.

Your message has been sent. We will email you at


If you haven't received our response, please do the following:
check your Spam/Junk folder and click the "Not Spam" button for our message.
This way, you won't miss messages from our team in the future.

>
>
>
V2608. MISRA. The 'static' storage clas…
Analyzer diagnostics
General Analysis (C++)
General Analysis (C#)
General Analysis (Java)
Diagnosis of micro-optimizations (C++)
Diagnosis of 64-bit errors (Viva64, C++)
Customer specific requests (C++)
MISRA errors
AUTOSAR errors
OWASP errors (C#)
Problems related to code analyzer
Additional information
Contents

V2608. MISRA. The 'static' storage class specifier should be used in all declarations of object and functions that have internal linkage.

04 Aoû 2021

This diagnostic rule is based on the software development guidelines developed by MISRA (Motor Industry Software Reliability Association).

A function or object declared once with internal linkage will also have internal linkage when redeclared or defined. This may not be obvious to developers, and therefore you should explicitly specify the 'static' specifier in each declaration and definition.

For C++, this rule applies only to functions.

The following code does not comply with the rule, since the definition does not reflect the internal linkage type specified in the 'foo' function declaration with the 'static' keyword:

static void foo(int x);  //in header.h
void foo(int x)          //in source.cpp
{
  ....
}

According to the rule, the code fragment should be as follows:

static void foo(int x);  //in header.h
static void foo(int x)   //in source.cpp
{
  ....
}

In the example below, the definition of the 'foo' function with the 'extern' storage class specifier does not specify the external linkage type, as it might seem. The linkage type remains internal:

static void foo(int x);  //in header.h
extern void foo(int x)   //in source.cpp
{
  ....
}

The C Standard allows using such code, but in this case, it is misleading. According to MISRA, here is the correct option:

extern void foo(int x);  //in header.h
extern void foo(int x)   //in source.cpp
{
  ....
}

A similar example with a global variable that violates the MISRA C rule:

static short y;       //in header.h
extern short y = 10;  //in source.c

The 'y' variable has the internal linkage type. This may not be obvious. A valid option would be:

static short y;       //in header.h
static short y = 10;  //in source.c

or

extern short y;       //in header.h
extern short y = 10;  //in source.c

This diagnostic is classified as:

  • MISRA-C-8.8
  • MISRA-CPP-3.3.2
Unicorn with delicious cookie
Nous utilisons des cookies pour améliorer votre expérience de navigation. En savoir plus
Accepter