Your browser does not support JavaScript! Skip to main content
Free 30-day trial Customer portal Careers DO-178C Handbook
 
Rapita Systems
 

Industry leading verification tools & services

Rapita Verification Suite (RVS)

  RapiTest - Unit/system testing   RapiCover - Structural coverage analysis   RapiTime - Timing analysis (inc. WCET)   RapiTask - Scheduling visualization   RapiCoverZero - Zero footprint coverage analysis   RapiTimeZero - Zero footprint timing analysis   RapiTaskZero - Zero footprint scheduling analysis

Multicore verification

  MACH178   Multicore Timing Solution   RapiDaemons

Services

  V & V Services   Qualification   Training   Tool Integration  Support

Industries

  Aerospace (DO-178C)   Automotive (ISO 26262)   Space

Other

  RTBx   Mx-Suite   Software licensing   Product life cycle policy  RVS development roadmap

Latest from Rapita HQ

Latest news

RVS 3.18 Launched
Solid Sands partners with Rapita Systems
Danlaw Acquires Maspatechnologies - Expanding Rapita Systems to Spain
Rapita co-authored paper wins ERTS22 Best paper award
View News

Latest from the Rapita blog

Measuring response times and more with RapiTime
Why mitigating interference alone isn’t enough to verify timing performance for multicore DO-178C projects
There are how many sources of interference in a multicore system?
Supporting modern development methodologies for verification of safety-critical software
View Blog

Latest discovery pages

do178c DO-178C Guidance: Introduction to RTCA DO-178 certification
matlab_simulink MATLAB® Simulink® MCDC coverage and WCET analysis
code_coverage_ada Code coverage for Ada, C and C++
amc-20-193 AMC 20-193
View Discovery pages

Upcoming events

Aerospace Tech Week Europe 2023
2023-03-29
Aeromart Montreal 2023
2023-04-04
Certification Together International Conference
2023-05-10
View Events

Technical resources for industry professionals

Latest White papers

DO178C Handbook
Efficient Verification Through the DO-178C Life Cycle
A Commercial Solution for Safety-Critical Multicore Timing Analysis
Compliance with the Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE) standard
View White papers

Latest Videos

Streamlined software verification with RVS 3.18
Sequence analysis with RapiTime
Visualize call dependencies with RVS thumbnail
Visualize call dependencies with RVS
Analyze code complexity thumbnail
Analyze code complexity with RVS
View Videos

Latest Case studies

Supporting ISO 26262 ASIL D software verification for EasyMile
RapiCover’s advanced features accelerate the certification of military UAV Engine Control
Front cover of whitepaper collins
Delivering world-class tool support to Collins Aerospace
View Case studies

Other Downloads

 Webinars

 Brochures

 Product briefs

 Technical notes

 Research projects

Discover Rapita

Who we are

The company menu

  • About us
  • Customers
  • Distributors
  • Locations
  • Partners
  • Research projects
  • Contact us

US office

+1 248-957-9801
info@rapitasystems.com
Rapita Systems, Inc.
41131 Vincenti Ct.
Novi
MI 48375
USA

UK office

+44 (0)1904 413945
info@rapitasystems.com
Rapita Systems Ltd.
Atlas House
Osbaldwick Link Road
York, YO10 3JB
UK

Spain office

+34 930 46 42 72
info@rapitasystems.com
Rapita Systems S.L.
Parc UPC, Edificio K2M
c/ Jordi Girona, 1-3, Office 306-307
Barcelona 08034
Spain

Working at Rapita

Careers

Careers menu

  • Current opportunities & application process
  • Working at Rapita
Back to Top

Breaking the switch statement

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Blog
  3. Breaking the switch statement
2015-06-12

While refreshing our RapiCover qualification kit, we looked harder for corner-cases and undefined behaviours. One of the more bizarre things we came across is the issue of code before the first case label of a switch statement. Such a simple concept turns out to have some rather unique challenges.

Here's a fairly standard-looking C switch statement with five branches (five code sequences to choose among):

switch( n )
  {
    case 0:  code_reset();
             break;
    case 1:
    case 2:  code_report( n );
             code_reset();
             break;
    case 3:  code_preset( 1 );
             code_report( 3 );
             break;
    case 4:  code_preset( 2 );
             code_report( 4 );
             break;
    default: code_any();
             code_reset();
  }

The behaviour is reasonably clear: if n is 0, call code_reset. if it's 1 or 2, call code_report(n). For 3, call code_preset first, then code_report(3). For anything else, call code_any and then code_reset.

Now here's a slight optimization: an additional goto statement looping from cases 3 and 4, back to cases 1 and 2:

switch( n )
  {
    case 0:  code_reset();
             break;
    report:
    case 1:
    case 2:  code_report( n );
             code_reset();
             break;
    case 3:  code_preset( 1 );
             goto report;
    case 4:  code_preset( 2 );
             goto report;
    default: code_any();
             code_reset();
  }

We often see this kind of optimization in parsers, regular expression engines, and other state-machine type systems.

So the natural next optimization is this:

switch( n )
  {
    reset:
    case 0:  code_reset();
             break;
    report:
    case 1:
    case 2:  code_report( n );
             goto reset;
    case 3:  code_preset( 1 );
             goto report;
    case 4:  code_preset( 2 );
             goto report;
    default: code_any();
             goto reset;
  }

So that got us thinking: now we've inserted something between the start of the switch and the first case label. Is that legal? What else can we put there? What does it mean? So we double-checked and found this note in ISO9899 under the "switch statement":

[

EXAMPLE In the artificial program fragment

switch (expr)
{
        int i = 4;
        f(i);
case 0:
        i=17; /* falls through into default code */
default:
        printf("%d\n", i);
}

The object whose identifier is i exists with automatic storage duration (within the block) but is never initialized, and thus if the controlling expression has a nonzero value, the call to the printf function will access an indeterminate value. Similarly, the call to function f cannot be reached.

]

So in general terms, the content at the top of the switch could be:

switch( n )
  {
    int j = some_expr;  /* j accessible but some_expr never evaluated */

    statement_1;    /* dead code */
    label1:
    statement_2;    /* reachable, but only by "goto label1" */
    case 0:         /* normal case label */
    ...             /* note that we can refer to "j" here but it was 
never initialized */
  }

Most of the time, such things would be forbidden through the use of a coding standard, but sometimes there is auto-generated code or hand-optimized parsing code that may try to use this code pattern.

The issue of some_expr not being evaluated is not limited to weird code in switch statements - it applies whenever code jumps over a declaration, leaving the variable in scope but with an undefined value.

For coverage reporting, we decided here to make sure that RapiCover reports on all of the constructs within potentially dead code, requiring the user to supply justifications to address any code that cannot be obtained through test. We do not make any special exception for potentially-skipped initializations or unreachable code.

Finally, note that this is all for C. There are some different issues with C++, related to scopes and object initialization, which we hope to address in a future post.

DO-178C webinars

DO178C webinars

White papers

DO178C Handbook Efficient Verification Through the DO-178C Life Cycle
A Commercial Solution for Safety-Critical Multicore Timing Analysis
Compliance with the Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE) standard
5 key factors to consider when selecting an embedded testing tool

Related blog posts

DO-178C - Stage of Involvement 4

.
2022-04-06

DO-178C - Stage of Involvement 3

.
2022-03-23

DO-178C - Stage of Involvement 2

.
2022-03-09

DO-178C - Stage of Involvement 1

.
2022-03-01

Pagination

  • Current page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Next page Next ›
  • Last page Last »
  • Solutions
    • Rapita Verification Suite
    • RapiTest
    • RapiCover
    • RapiTime
    • RapiTask
    • MACH178

    • Verification and Validation Services
    • Qualification
    • Training
    • Integration
  • Latest
  • Latest menu

    • News
    • Blog
    • Events
    • Videos
  • Downloads
  • Downloads menu

    • Brochures
    • Webinars
    • White Papers
    • Case Studies
    • Product briefs
    • Technical notes
    • Software licensing
  • Company
  • Company menu

    • About Rapita
    • Careers
    • Customers
    • Distributors
    • Industries
    • Locations
    • Partners
    • Research projects
    • Contact
  • Discover
    • AMC 20-193
    • What is CAST-32A?
    • Multicore Timing Analysis
    • MC/DC Coverage
    • Code coverage for Ada, C & C++
    • Embedded Software Testing Tools
    • Aerospace Software Testing
    • Automotive Software Testing
    • Certifying eVTOL
    • DO-178C
    • WCET Tools
    • Worst Case Execution Time
    • Timing analysis (WCET) & Code coverage for MATLAB® Simulink®

All materials © Rapita Systems Ltd. 2023 - All rights reserved | Privacy information | Trademark notice Subscribe to our newsletter