Polyspace-bug-finder raises issue due to Rule A3-1-5 if inline function is declared in source file

Hello,

I declared a function in the header file and implemented it in the source file using the "inline" keyword. Polyspace-bug-finder still raises an issue because of Autosar rule A3-1-5.

Is this intended so that the function definition shall be placed in the header file?

Thanks!

Answer 1

[Anirban]

Can you show a small reproduction example? Also, which release are you using?

For instance, there is no violation of A3-1-5 in this example on the inline definition of A::Bar() :

classDefs.h:

class A
{
	private:
	std::uint32_t val = 5;
	
	public:
	inline std::uint32_t Foo() //Compliant
	{
		return val;
	}
	
	std::uint32_t Bar(); 
};

C++ file:

#include <cstdint>
#include <iostream>
#include "classDefs.h"

inline std::uint32_t A::Bar() 
{
    int updatedVal = val + 5;
	return (updatedVal);
} 

std::uint32_t main()
{
	A a;
	std::cout << a.Foo() << std::endl;
	std::cout << a.Bar() << std::endl;
	return 0;
}

Answer 2

[Viktoria]

Hi Anirban,

thanks for the answer and the code example.

Following modification of the exmaple will result in a violation of rule A3-1-5 in A::Foo().

classDefs.h

#pragma once

#include <cstdint>

class A {
  private:
    std::uint32_t val = 5;

  public:
    std::uint32_t Foo();

    std::uint32_t Bar();
};

classDefs.cpp

#include "classDefs.h"
#include <iostream>

std::uint32_t A::Bar() {
    int updatedVal = val + 5;
    return (updatedVal);
}

inline std::uint32_t A::Foo()
{
    return val;
}

std::uint32_t main() {
    A a;
    std::cout << a.Foo() << std::endl;
    std::cout << a.Bar() << std::endl;
    return 0;
}

Used polyspace version: R2022a

[Anirban]

Thanks for the reproduction! Yes, the checker is intended to work this way. The specs for AUTOSAR C++14 A3-1-5 suggest placing the definitions of small methods inside the class definition to save time and space (and the checker treats one-line functions as "small methods"). So, in the above example, placing the method definition inside the class definition would be the fix for the coding rule violation.

[Viktoria]

Hi Anirban,

thanks for the clarification!