I am in a position where I must strictly adhere to AUTOSAR’s C++ coding rules, and I am troubled by them every day. One day, while checking the rules, I noticed something strange about the sample for A4-7-1.

I’m working in the field of Automotive. When I implement several software function belonging to a specific Application SWC, I normally follow “Compiler Abstraction” standard by AUTOSAR. But, when I participated in another project based on AUTOSAR platform, they didn’t follow “Compiler Abstraction” standard, when implementing application software functions. So, my question is that what is the criteria of using “Compiler Abstraction” in “Application SWC”?? For example, the EX1 code snippet below shows one example of that standard. It is same as EX2. It is just the difference of using MACRO or not. From my understanding, BSW software functions should follow “Compiler Abstraction”, but I don’t know the application software functions should follow this standard. From my point of view, when using the compiler abstraction, the one of the advantages is abstraction and code portability, when changing Micom. But in terms of microprocessor performance, I’m not sure. So my questions are as follow.

I have defined wakeup sources in EcuMWakeupSource for which the parameter EcuMComMChannelRef is empty (=> there is no relationship to any ComM channel).
Now I am trying to set such a wakeup source by calling EcuM_SetWakeupEvent() but it won’t add the wakeup source to the internal variable for validated wakeup Sources (which can be retrieved by calling EcuM_GetValidatedWakeupEvents()).
Even using a EcuMValidationTimeout won’t improve the situation as EcuM_ValidateWakeupEvent() will still never set the (internal) flag for validated wakeup.

I have one ECU with two CAN Connectors [CAN1 and CAN2] and two are on different NM CAN Clusters.
I want NM-USER-DATA_ENABLED value TRUE only for CAN1 while I want FALSE for CAN2.
Is that allowed according to AUTOSAR TPS Template?
If so how?
Because I don’t see any relevant attribute under BusSecificNmEcu for this User Data parameter. Only under NmEcu as shown below.
Some example ARXML will help me a lot.
Shown below are snippets from Standard

How to Calculate Cycle Time for LIN Messages from ARXML or LDF Files

Is this a Typo or intentional as UDPNm is sending CANNm PDU in the snippet below?
If yes, then please provide me some details about an Ethernet ECU Interface running UDPNm can send CANNm PDU on the CAN ECU Interface?

RTE Signal Fan-In mechanism selects which ISignal as the received Data within the Atomic Software Component R-Port?
Relevant snippets are shown below

Is there anything possible in AUTOSAR related to N-PDU based routing, which essentially means Frame Based Routing? If so, some related AUTOSAR System Template Artifact snippets please to help better understand about the implementation details.
Related questions
Difference between Signal based routing and PDU based routing in AUTOSAR

As shown in the snippet from AUTOSAR UML Class Diagram, please let me know which document describes the meaning of 3 types of Arrow Connectors 1/2/3

As shown in the snippet from AUTOSAR UML Class Diagram, please let me know which document describes the meaning of 3 types of Arrow Connectors 1/2/3