Report differences between formal parameter names in header file prototypes and formal parameter namers in function definitions
Formal parameter names in function prototypes are optional, but are often used, ideally with names that convey something about the value that should be passed. In C and C++, those names have prototype scope, go away after the prototype is parsed and processed, and are irrelevant to code generation--but a discrepancy between the name of the formal in the prototype and the corresponding name in the function definition can mislead a programmer seeing only the prototype and cause him or her to pass the wrong value. It would therefore be worthwhile for a lint program to remember the prototype formal parameter names and report discrepancies between them and the parameter names in the function defintiion.
This functionality is provided in PC-lint Plus with messages 955 (parameter of forward declaration lacks a name), 9072 (parameter of function has different name than previous declaration) and 9272 (parameter of function has different name than overridden function).
Achim Olaf Zacher commented
It has been part of MISRA C1 1998 and MISRA C2 2004 checking already. ((Rule 74/16.4) Parameter list differs from prior declaration for function.)
But it doesn't detect missing/different const in header?
Michael Metivier commented
This functionality is included in version 9.0k as Note 9072. From my test program:
Note 9072: parameter list differs from prior declaration for function 'driver(const sbConfigT *, sbStateT *)' [MISRA 2012 Rule 8.3, required]
This is enabled by selecting the -misra(3) option, or it should be able to be enabled directly by +e9072