Misra C:2012 (including AMD4) compliance and plans for 2023?

SonarQube Cloud Product Manager for a Day
,
1

I cannot figure out whether or not SonarQube or Sonarcloud (same rulesets?) are MISRA C:2012 compliant including the latest changes from amendment 4 or not.

There was an old thread which didn’t quite answer that question: Does SonarQube supports MISRA Standard? - #14 by Mohamed_Chibani

Refering to your docs at C/C++/Objective-C | SonarCloud Docs I can only find 11 rules for cpp with the search filter “misra-c2012”. If I search for “misra-c2012” I get quite a few more results: 167 rules.

For comparison (tags vs search):

I’m actually interested in C rules, not C++. But the same pattern applies (11 rules vs 124 rules).
Still 124 rules are less than expected. Since I cannot rely on trust when it comes to compliance, I would hope for more concrete and binding statements here.

MISRA C:2023 is nothing I need right now but I’d be interested in how these rules eventually find their way into SonarQube.

3

Hello @naymore

The rules we implement for MISRA C:2012 are not compliant with amendment 4. The rules were developed before the amendment was released.

The information you want is in the tag. If you do a simple search, it is doing a loser match on all the content.
These are the MISCRA C:2012 rules we implement and can run on C++ files.
These are the MISCRA C:2012 rules we implement and can run on C files.
In that case, these lists are equal.

These are all the MISRA C:2012 rules we strictly implement at the moment.
The other thread you pointed out explains how we also implement other MISRA-based rules in our own way to make them suitable for more users.

You can upvote a better coverage of strict MISRA C:2012 rules here. And you can also see many other features that we are recording traction for.