Access to all array elements from a void pointer parameter passed to a function compliant with MISRA Rule...
0
Only embedded C.
I need a function to copy unsigned data from a 4-bytes array byte per byte to an output parameter (both passed as reference). Function should be MISRA 17.4 compliant and should support different unsigned integer datatype for output parameter (considering input will always have the exact number of unsigned bytes to fill the output)
So my code is:
static void copy_array(const void * src, void * dest, const uint8_t lenght_bytes)
{
uint8_t i;
const uint8_t * src_8 = (const uint8_t*)src;
uint8_t * dest_8 = (uint8_t*)dest;
for (i = 0u; i < lenght_bytes; i++)
{
*(dest_8 + i) = *(src_8 + i);
}
}
static void func(void)
{
uint8_t data = {0xEFu, 0xCDu, 0x0u, 0x0u};
uint16_t dest_16;
uint32_t dest_32;
copy_array(data, &dest_16, sizeof(dest_16));
data[0] = 0xEFu;
data[1] = 0xCDu;
data[2] = 0xABu;
data[3] = 0x89u;
copy_array(data, &dest_32, sizeof(dest_32));
}
So, MISRA limits pointer arithmetic operations only to array indexing, therefore, my function is not compliant.
Any smart way to avoid the rule or to perform same operation but MISRA compliant?
c embedded void-pointers misra
asked Nov 22 at 19:37
Gianpiero Trane
61
add a comment |
0
Only embedded C.
I need a function to copy unsigned data from a 4-bytes array byte per byte to an output parameter (both passed as reference). Function should be MISRA 17.4 compliant and should support different unsigned integer datatype for output parameter (considering input will always have the exact number of unsigned bytes to fill the output)
So my code is:
static void copy_array(const void * src, void * dest, const uint8_t lenght_bytes)
{
uint8_t i;
const uint8_t * src_8 = (const uint8_t*)src;
uint8_t * dest_8 = (uint8_t*)dest;
for (i = 0u; i < lenght_bytes; i++)
{
*(dest_8 + i) = *(src_8 + i);
}
}
static void func(void)
{
uint8_t data = {0xEFu, 0xCDu, 0x0u, 0x0u};
uint16_t dest_16;
uint32_t dest_32;
copy_array(data, &dest_16, sizeof(dest_16));
data[0] = 0xEFu;
data[1] = 0xCDu;
data[2] = 0xABu;
data[3] = 0x89u;
copy_array(data, &dest_32, sizeof(dest_32));
}
So, MISRA limits pointer arithmetic operations only to array indexing, therefore, my function is not compliant.
Any smart way to avoid the rule or to perform same operation but MISRA compliant?
c embedded void-pointers misra
asked Nov 22 at 19:37
Gianpiero Trane
61
2
why not usememcpy?
– P.W
Nov 23 at 6:40
2
dest_8[i] = src_8[i] ???
– A.R.C.
Nov 23 at 6:51
1
@P.W Could be a requirement that all libraries are MISRA compliant. In which case you have to roll out memcpy yourself. Quite common (and unfortunate) for strict MISRA-C implementations.
– Lundin
Nov 23 at 8:03
Any reason for using a homebrew function instead of the standard functionmemcpyevery modern compiler knows and is able to highly optimise (and does exactly whatr you seem to intend)?
– too honest for this site
Nov 23 at 19:09
1
@P.W memcpy isn't compliant with MISRA 17.4 and I'm not allowed to use it.
– Gianpiero Trane
Nov 24 at 11:29
add a comment |
0
0
0
Only embedded C.
I need a function to copy unsigned data from a 4-bytes array byte per byte to an output parameter (both passed as reference). Function should be MISRA 17.4 compliant and should support different unsigned integer datatype for output parameter (considering input will always have the exact number of unsigned bytes to fill the output)
So my code is:
static void copy_array(const void * src, void * dest, const uint8_t lenght_bytes)
{
uint8_t i;
const uint8_t * src_8 = (const uint8_t*)src;
uint8_t * dest_8 = (uint8_t*)dest;
for (i = 0u; i < lenght_bytes; i++)
{
*(dest_8 + i) = *(src_8 + i);
}
}
static void func(void)
{
uint8_t data = {0xEFu, 0xCDu, 0x0u, 0x0u};
uint16_t dest_16;
uint32_t dest_32;
copy_array(data, &dest_16, sizeof(dest_16));
data[0] = 0xEFu;
data[1] = 0xCDu;
data[2] = 0xABu;
data[3] = 0x89u;
copy_array(data, &dest_32, sizeof(dest_32));
}
So, MISRA limits pointer arithmetic operations only to array indexing, therefore, my function is not compliant.
Any smart way to avoid the rule or to perform same operation but MISRA compliant?
c embedded void-pointers misra
asked Nov 22 at 19:37
Gianpiero Trane
61
Only embedded C.
I need a function to copy unsigned data from a 4-bytes array byte per byte to an output parameter (both passed as reference). Function should be MISRA 17.4 compliant and should support different unsigned integer datatype for output parameter (considering input will always have the exact number of unsigned bytes to fill the output)
So my code is:
static void copy_array(const void * src, void * dest, const uint8_t lenght_bytes)
{
uint8_t i;
const uint8_t * src_8 = (const uint8_t*)src;
uint8_t * dest_8 = (uint8_t*)dest;
for (i = 0u; i < lenght_bytes; i++)
{
*(dest_8 + i) = *(src_8 + i);
}
}
static void func(void)
{
uint8_t data = {0xEFu, 0xCDu, 0x0u, 0x0u};
uint16_t dest_16;
uint32_t dest_32;
copy_array(data, &dest_16, sizeof(dest_16));
data[0] = 0xEFu;
data[1] = 0xCDu;
data[2] = 0xABu;
data[3] = 0x89u;
copy_array(data, &dest_32, sizeof(dest_32));
}
So, MISRA limits pointer arithmetic operations only to array indexing, therefore, my function is not compliant.
Any smart way to avoid the rule or to perform same operation but MISRA compliant?
c embedded void-pointers misra
c embedded void-pointers misra
asked Nov 22 at 19:37
Gianpiero Trane
61
asked Nov 22 at 19:37
Gianpiero Trane
61
edited Nov 24 at 11:19
asked Nov 22 at 19:37
Gianpiero Trane
61
asked Nov 22 at 19:37
Gianpiero Trane
61
asked Nov 22 at 19:37
Gianpiero Trane
61
61
2
why not usememcpy?
– P.W
Nov 23 at 6:40
2
dest_8[i] = src_8[i] ???
– A.R.C.
Nov 23 at 6:51
1
@P.W Could be a requirement that all libraries are MISRA compliant. In which case you have to roll out memcpy yourself. Quite common (and unfortunate) for strict MISRA-C implementations.
– Lundin
Nov 23 at 8:03
Any reason for using a homebrew function instead of the standard functionmemcpyevery modern compiler knows and is able to highly optimise (and does exactly whatr you seem to intend)?
– too honest for this site
Nov 23 at 19:09
1
@P.W memcpy isn't compliant with MISRA 17.4 and I'm not allowed to use it.
– Gianpiero Trane
Nov 24 at 11:29
add a comment |
2
why not usememcpy?
– P.W
Nov 23 at 6:40
2
dest_8[i] = src_8[i] ???
– A.R.C.
Nov 23 at 6:51
1
@P.W Could be a requirement that all libraries are MISRA compliant. In which case you have to roll out memcpy yourself. Quite common (and unfortunate) for strict MISRA-C implementations.
– Lundin
Nov 23 at 8:03
Any reason for using a homebrew function instead of the standard functionmemcpyevery modern compiler knows and is able to highly optimise (and does exactly whatr you seem to intend)?
– too honest for this site
Nov 23 at 19:09
1
@P.W memcpy isn't compliant with MISRA 17.4 and I'm not allowed to use it.
– Gianpiero Trane
Nov 24 at 11:29
2
2
why not use
memcpy?– P.W
Nov 23 at 6:40
why not use
memcpy?– P.W
Nov 23 at 6:40
2
2
dest_8[i] = src_8[i] ???
– A.R.C.
Nov 23 at 6:51
dest_8[i] = src_8[i] ???
– A.R.C.
Nov 23 at 6:51
1
1
@P.W Could be a requirement that all libraries are MISRA compliant. In which case you have to roll out memcpy yourself. Quite common (and unfortunate) for strict MISRA-C implementations.
– Lundin
Nov 23 at 8:03
@P.W Could be a requirement that all libraries are MISRA compliant. In which case you have to roll out memcpy yourself. Quite common (and unfortunate) for strict MISRA-C implementations.
– Lundin
Nov 23 at 8:03
Any reason for using a homebrew function instead of the standard function
memcpy every modern compiler knows and is able to highly optimise (and does exactly whatr you seem to intend)?– too honest for this site
Nov 23 at 19:09
Any reason for using a homebrew function instead of the standard function
memcpy every modern compiler knows and is able to highly optimise (and does exactly whatr you seem to intend)?– too honest for this site
Nov 23 at 19:09
1
1
@P.W memcpy isn't compliant with MISRA 17.4 and I'm not allowed to use it.
– Gianpiero Trane
Nov 24 at 11:29
@P.W memcpy isn't compliant with MISRA 17.4 and I'm not allowed to use it.
– Gianpiero Trane
Nov 24 at 11:29
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
5
First of all, this is not valid C:
uint8_t data[4] = {0xEFu, 0xCDu, NULL, NULL};
Since NULL might be a null pointer constant of the form (void*)0. Replace NULL with 0 here.
As for the old MISRA-C:2004 requirement about array indexing being the only allowed form, it was mostly nonsense and has been fixed in the current MISRA-C:2012. That being said, there is no need for explicit pointer arithmetic in your code, so that rule makes sense here.
Simply fix the function like this:
static void copy_array(const void* src, void* dest, const uint8_t lenght_bytes)
{
uint8_t i;
const uint8_t* src_8 = src;
uint8_t* dest_8 = dest;
for (i = 0u; i < lenght_bytes; i++)
{
dest_8[i] = src_8[i];
}
}
answered Nov 23 at 8:02
Lundin
106k17156260
Thanks @Lundin. You are right, not valid initialization, it was just example but I updated to avoid confusion. Regarding your solution, I'm afraid MISRA 17.4 does not allow use [ ] at a variable declared as a pointer, not as an array.
– Gianpiero Trane
Nov 24 at 11:22
1
@GianpieroTrane Of course they do, what they don't allow is pointer arithmetic with*(ptr + n)instead ofptr[n]as the former is harder to read.
– Lundin
Nov 25 at 15:03
1
Rule 17.4 Array indexing shall be the only allowed form of pointer. Arithmetic array indexing shall only be applied to objects defined as an array type.
– Gianpiero Trane
Nov 26 at 10:13
Rule 17.4 is simply "No pointer arithmetic other than array indexing". That being said a google search on your phrase brings up Goanna Studio - Static Analysis check rule of "Array indexing shall only be applied to objects defined as an array type." You should ask those Goanna folks how to pass an array into a function because their examples don't cover that.
– Fred
Nov 27 at 23:17
@Lundin What about thedest? It is declared asuint16_t dest_16, but MISRA 2004 explicitely states that Array indexing shall only be applied to objects defined as an array type. Not helpful in cases like this, but required nonetheless.
– ZenJ
Nov 28 at 23:53
|
show 4 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53437181%2faccess-to-all-array-elements-from-a-void-pointer-parameter-passed-to-a-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
5
First of all, this is not valid C:
uint8_t data[4] = {0xEFu, 0xCDu, NULL, NULL};
Since NULL might be a null pointer constant of the form (void*)0. Replace NULL with 0 here.
As for the old MISRA-C:2004 requirement about array indexing being the only allowed form, it was mostly nonsense and has been fixed in the current MISRA-C:2012. That being said, there is no need for explicit pointer arithmetic in your code, so that rule makes sense here.
Simply fix the function like this:
static void copy_array(const void* src, void* dest, const uint8_t lenght_bytes)
{
uint8_t i;
const uint8_t* src_8 = src;
uint8_t* dest_8 = dest;
for (i = 0u; i < lenght_bytes; i++)
{
dest_8[i] = src_8[i];
}
}
answered Nov 23 at 8:02
Lundin
106k17156260
Thanks @Lundin. You are right, not valid initialization, it was just example but I updated to avoid confusion. Regarding your solution, I'm afraid MISRA 17.4 does not allow use [ ] at a variable declared as a pointer, not as an array.
– Gianpiero Trane
Nov 24 at 11:22
1
@GianpieroTrane Of course they do, what they don't allow is pointer arithmetic with*(ptr + n)instead ofptr[n]as the former is harder to read.
– Lundin
Nov 25 at 15:03
1
Rule 17.4 Array indexing shall be the only allowed form of pointer. Arithmetic array indexing shall only be applied to objects defined as an array type.
– Gianpiero Trane
Nov 26 at 10:13
Rule 17.4 is simply "No pointer arithmetic other than array indexing". That being said a google search on your phrase brings up Goanna Studio - Static Analysis check rule of "Array indexing shall only be applied to objects defined as an array type." You should ask those Goanna folks how to pass an array into a function because their examples don't cover that.
– Fred
Nov 27 at 23:17
@Lundin What about thedest? It is declared asuint16_t dest_16, but MISRA 2004 explicitely states that Array indexing shall only be applied to objects defined as an array type. Not helpful in cases like this, but required nonetheless.
– ZenJ
Nov 28 at 23:53
|
show 4 more comments
5
First of all, this is not valid C:
uint8_t data[4] = {0xEFu, 0xCDu, NULL, NULL};
Since NULL might be a null pointer constant of the form (void*)0. Replace NULL with 0 here.
As for the old MISRA-C:2004 requirement about array indexing being the only allowed form, it was mostly nonsense and has been fixed in the current MISRA-C:2012. That being said, there is no need for explicit pointer arithmetic in your code, so that rule makes sense here.
Simply fix the function like this:
static void copy_array(const void* src, void* dest, const uint8_t lenght_bytes)
{
uint8_t i;
const uint8_t* src_8 = src;
uint8_t* dest_8 = dest;
for (i = 0u; i < lenght_bytes; i++)
{
dest_8[i] = src_8[i];
}
}
answered Nov 23 at 8:02
Lundin
106k17156260
Thanks @Lundin. You are right, not valid initialization, it was just example but I updated to avoid confusion. Regarding your solution, I'm afraid MISRA 17.4 does not allow use [ ] at a variable declared as a pointer, not as an array.
– Gianpiero Trane
Nov 24 at 11:22
1
@GianpieroTrane Of course they do, what they don't allow is pointer arithmetic with*(ptr + n)instead ofptr[n]as the former is harder to read.
– Lundin
Nov 25 at 15:03
1
Rule 17.4 Array indexing shall be the only allowed form of pointer. Arithmetic array indexing shall only be applied to objects defined as an array type.
– Gianpiero Trane
Nov 26 at 10:13
Rule 17.4 is simply "No pointer arithmetic other than array indexing". That being said a google search on your phrase brings up Goanna Studio - Static Analysis check rule of "Array indexing shall only be applied to objects defined as an array type." You should ask those Goanna folks how to pass an array into a function because their examples don't cover that.
– Fred
Nov 27 at 23:17
@Lundin What about thedest? It is declared asuint16_t dest_16, but MISRA 2004 explicitely states that Array indexing shall only be applied to objects defined as an array type. Not helpful in cases like this, but required nonetheless.
– ZenJ
Nov 28 at 23:53
|
show 4 more comments
5
5
5
First of all, this is not valid C:
uint8_t data[4] = {0xEFu, 0xCDu, NULL, NULL};
Since NULL might be a null pointer constant of the form (void*)0. Replace NULL with 0 here.
As for the old MISRA-C:2004 requirement about array indexing being the only allowed form, it was mostly nonsense and has been fixed in the current MISRA-C:2012. That being said, there is no need for explicit pointer arithmetic in your code, so that rule makes sense here.
Simply fix the function like this:
static void copy_array(const void* src, void* dest, const uint8_t lenght_bytes)
{
uint8_t i;
const uint8_t* src_8 = src;
uint8_t* dest_8 = dest;
for (i = 0u; i < lenght_bytes; i++)
{
dest_8[i] = src_8[i];
}
}
answered Nov 23 at 8:02
Lundin
106k17156260
First of all, this is not valid C:
uint8_t data[4] = {0xEFu, 0xCDu, NULL, NULL};
Since NULL might be a null pointer constant of the form (void*)0. Replace NULL with 0 here.
As for the old MISRA-C:2004 requirement about array indexing being the only allowed form, it was mostly nonsense and has been fixed in the current MISRA-C:2012. That being said, there is no need for explicit pointer arithmetic in your code, so that rule makes sense here.
Simply fix the function like this:
static void copy_array(const void* src, void* dest, const uint8_t lenght_bytes)
{
uint8_t i;
const uint8_t* src_8 = src;
uint8_t* dest_8 = dest;
for (i = 0u; i < lenght_bytes; i++)
{
dest_8[i] = src_8[i];
}
}
answered Nov 23 at 8:02
Lundin
106k17156260
edited Nov 23 at 9:02
answered Nov 23 at 8:02
Lundin
106k17156260
answered Nov 23 at 8:02
Lundin
106k17156260
answered Nov 23 at 8:02
Lundin
106k17156260
106k17156260
Thanks @Lundin. You are right, not valid initialization, it was just example but I updated to avoid confusion. Regarding your solution, I'm afraid MISRA 17.4 does not allow use [ ] at a variable declared as a pointer, not as an array.
– Gianpiero Trane
Nov 24 at 11:22
1
@GianpieroTrane Of course they do, what they don't allow is pointer arithmetic with*(ptr + n)instead ofptr[n]as the former is harder to read.
– Lundin
Nov 25 at 15:03
1
Rule 17.4 Array indexing shall be the only allowed form of pointer. Arithmetic array indexing shall only be applied to objects defined as an array type.
– Gianpiero Trane
Nov 26 at 10:13
Rule 17.4 is simply "No pointer arithmetic other than array indexing". That being said a google search on your phrase brings up Goanna Studio - Static Analysis check rule of "Array indexing shall only be applied to objects defined as an array type." You should ask those Goanna folks how to pass an array into a function because their examples don't cover that.
– Fred
Nov 27 at 23:17
@Lundin What about thedest? It is declared asuint16_t dest_16, but MISRA 2004 explicitely states that Array indexing shall only be applied to objects defined as an array type. Not helpful in cases like this, but required nonetheless.
– ZenJ
Nov 28 at 23:53
|
show 4 more comments
Thanks @Lundin. You are right, not valid initialization, it was just example but I updated to avoid confusion. Regarding your solution, I'm afraid MISRA 17.4 does not allow use [ ] at a variable declared as a pointer, not as an array.
– Gianpiero Trane
Nov 24 at 11:22
1
@GianpieroTrane Of course they do, what they don't allow is pointer arithmetic with*(ptr + n)instead ofptr[n]as the former is harder to read.
– Lundin
Nov 25 at 15:03
1
Rule 17.4 Array indexing shall be the only allowed form of pointer. Arithmetic array indexing shall only be applied to objects defined as an array type.
– Gianpiero Trane
Nov 26 at 10:13
Rule 17.4 is simply "No pointer arithmetic other than array indexing". That being said a google search on your phrase brings up Goanna Studio - Static Analysis check rule of "Array indexing shall only be applied to objects defined as an array type." You should ask those Goanna folks how to pass an array into a function because their examples don't cover that.
– Fred
Nov 27 at 23:17
@Lundin What about thedest? It is declared asuint16_t dest_16, but MISRA 2004 explicitely states that Array indexing shall only be applied to objects defined as an array type. Not helpful in cases like this, but required nonetheless.
– ZenJ
Nov 28 at 23:53
Thanks @Lundin. You are right, not valid initialization, it was just example but I updated to avoid confusion. Regarding your solution, I'm afraid MISRA 17.4 does not allow use [ ] at a variable declared as a pointer, not as an array.
– Gianpiero Trane
Nov 24 at 11:22
Thanks @Lundin. You are right, not valid initialization, it was just example but I updated to avoid confusion. Regarding your solution, I'm afraid MISRA 17.4 does not allow use [ ] at a variable declared as a pointer, not as an array.
– Gianpiero Trane
Nov 24 at 11:22
1
1
@GianpieroTrane Of course they do, what they don't allow is pointer arithmetic with
*(ptr + n) instead of ptr[n] as the former is harder to read.– Lundin
Nov 25 at 15:03
@GianpieroTrane Of course they do, what they don't allow is pointer arithmetic with
*(ptr + n) instead of ptr[n] as the former is harder to read.– Lundin
Nov 25 at 15:03
1
1
Rule 17.4 Array indexing shall be the only allowed form of pointer. Arithmetic array indexing shall only be applied to objects defined as an array type.
– Gianpiero Trane
Nov 26 at 10:13
Rule 17.4 Array indexing shall be the only allowed form of pointer. Arithmetic array indexing shall only be applied to objects defined as an array type.
– Gianpiero Trane
Nov 26 at 10:13
Rule 17.4 is simply "No pointer arithmetic other than array indexing". That being said a google search on your phrase brings up Goanna Studio - Static Analysis check rule of "Array indexing shall only be applied to objects defined as an array type." You should ask those Goanna folks how to pass an array into a function because their examples don't cover that.
– Fred
Nov 27 at 23:17
Rule 17.4 is simply "No pointer arithmetic other than array indexing". That being said a google search on your phrase brings up Goanna Studio - Static Analysis check rule of "Array indexing shall only be applied to objects defined as an array type." You should ask those Goanna folks how to pass an array into a function because their examples don't cover that.
– Fred
Nov 27 at 23:17
@Lundin What about the
dest? It is declared as uint16_t dest_16, but MISRA 2004 explicitely states that Array indexing shall only be applied to objects defined as an array type. Not helpful in cases like this, but required nonetheless.– ZenJ
Nov 28 at 23:53
@Lundin What about the
dest? It is declared as uint16_t dest_16, but MISRA 2004 explicitely states that Array indexing shall only be applied to objects defined as an array type. Not helpful in cases like this, but required nonetheless.– ZenJ
Nov 28 at 23:53
|
show 4 more comments
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53437181%2faccess-to-all-array-elements-from-a-void-pointer-parameter-passed-to-a-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
why not use
memcpy?– P.W
Nov 23 at 6:40
2
dest_8[i] = src_8[i] ???
– A.R.C.
Nov 23 at 6:51
1
@P.W Could be a requirement that all libraries are MISRA compliant. In which case you have to roll out memcpy yourself. Quite common (and unfortunate) for strict MISRA-C implementations.
– Lundin
Nov 23 at 8:03
Any reason for using a homebrew function instead of the standard function
memcpyevery modern compiler knows and is able to highly optimise (and does exactly whatr you seem to intend)?– too honest for this site
Nov 23 at 19:09
1
@P.W memcpy isn't compliant with MISRA 17.4 and I'm not allowed to use it.
– Gianpiero Trane
Nov 24 at 11:29