|MISRA-C:2010 (version3) - should it use C99 or C95? firstname.lastname@example.org (Chris Hills) (2007-09-10)|
|Re: MISRA-C:2010 (version3) - should it use C99 or C95? email@example.com (Chris Hills) (2007-09-11)|
|Re: MISRA-C:2010 (version3) - should it use C99 or C95? firstname.lastname@example.org (2007-09-11)|
|Re: MISRA-C:2010 (version3) - should it use C99 or C95? email@example.com (Marco) (2007-09-21)|
|Date:||Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:18:54 -0700|
|Posted-Date:||23 Sep 2007 18:57:49 EDT|
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.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.