On 4/9/24 16:00, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
On 2024-04-09 16:02, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
On 4/5/24 05:14, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
Refactor the switch so that a violation of
MISRA C Rule 16.2 is resolved (A switch label shall only be used
when the most closely-enclosing compound statement is the body
On 2024-04-09 16:02, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
On 4/5/24 05:14, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
Refactor the switch so that a violation of
MISRA C Rule 16.2 is resolved (A switch label shall only be used
when the most closely-enclosing compound statement is the body of
a switch statement).
Note that the
On 4/5/24 05:14, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
Refactor the switch so that a violation of
MISRA C Rule 16.2 is resolved (A switch label shall only be used
when the most closely-enclosing compound statement is the body of
a switch statement).
Note that the switch clause ending with the pseudo
keyword
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> Refactor the switch so that a violation of
> MISRA C Rule 16.2 is resolved (A switch label shall only be used
> when the most closely-enclosing compound statement is the body of
> a switch statement).
> Note that the switch clause ending with the pseudo
Refactor the switch so that a violation of
MISRA C Rule 16.2 is resolved (A switch label shall only be used
when the most closely-enclosing compound statement is the body of
a switch statement).
Note that the switch clause ending with the pseudo
keyword "fallthrough" is an allowed exception to
