Home > Archive > Compilers > September 2007 > MISRA-C:2010 (version3) - should it use C99 or C95?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
MISRA-C:2010 (version3) - should it use C99 or C95?
|
|
| Chris Hills 2007-09-10, 7:13 pm |
|
The MISRA-C team has to make a decision: should it move from
Referencing C95 (9899:1990+A1+RC1+TC2) to referencing C99 for the next
MISRA-C (version 3)
In the real world (especially embedded, safety-critical and
high-integrity circles) there are no C99 compilers in use as of
September 2007. They are C95+.
Any thoughts from anyone involved in writing compilers? Either to the
NG or to my email address. Yes, I have asked most of the main
embedded compiler companies I have contacts for (about 15 of them so
far) .
--
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
[MISRA C is a set of guidelines for writing C code for embedded
applications in motor vehicles. Needless to say, it is an environment
where bugs are bad. -John]
| |
| Chris Hills 2007-09-13, 4:21 am |
| >[MISRA C is a set of guidelines for writing C code for embedded
>applications in motor vehicles. Needless to say, it is an environment
>where bugs are bad. -John]
MISRA-C is for Critical Systems. It has not been specifically for
automotive use since the 2004 version.
The original version 1998 was aimed at the automotive market but
pretty soon escaped in to everything else. Now it is used outside the
automotive industry as much or more than inside. It is used in
aerospace, medical, control systems in fact almost anywhere embedded C
is used.
--
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
| |
| Dick Streefland 2007-09-13, 4:21 am |
| Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
| The MISRA-C team has to make a decision: should it move from
| Referencing C95 (9899:1990+A1+RC1+TC2) to referencing C99 for the next
| MISRA-C (version 3)
|
| In the real world (especially embedded, safety-critical and
| high-integrity circles) there are no C99 compilers in use as of
| September 2007. They are C95+.
The TASKING compilers of ALTIUM conform to C99, although there is a
commandline option to switch to C90 mode. In my opinion, a C compiler
should be able to support C99 by now, and a future MISRA-C version
should be based on C99.
--
Dick Streefland //// Altium BV
dick.streefland@altium.nl (@ @) http://www.altium.com
--------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo---------------------------
| |
|
| On Sep 10, 12:22 am, Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> The MISRA-C team has to make a decision: should it move from
> Referencing C95 (9899:1990+A1+RC1+TC2) to referencing C99 for the next
> MISRA-C (version 3)
>
> In the real world (especially embedded, safety-critical and
> high-integrity circles) there are no C99 compilers in use as of
> September 2007. They are C95+.
>
> Any thoughts from anyone involved in writing compilers? Either to the
> NG or to my email address. Yes, I have asked most of the main
> embedded compiler companies I have contacts for (about 15 of them so
> far) .
How would this affect current or future rules?
Could both be referenced ?
Almost all current C compilers have at least some C99 in them
like // comments.
|
|
|
|
|