MISRA-C:2010 (version3) - should it use C99 or C95?

Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org>
Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:22:45 +0100

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
MISRA-C:2010 (version3) - should it use C99 or C95? chris@phaedsys.org (Chris Hills) (2007-09-10)
Re: MISRA-C:2010 (version3) - should it use C99 or C95? chris@phaedsys.org (Chris Hills) (2007-09-11)
Re: MISRA-C:2010 (version3) - should it use C99 or C95? spam@altium.nl (2007-09-11)
Re: MISRA-C:2010 (version3) - should it use C99 or C95? prenom_nomus@yahoo.com (Marco) (2007-09-21)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:22:45 +0100
Organization: Phaedrus Systems
Keywords: C, standards, question, embedded
Posted-Date: 10 Sep 2007 09:27:52 EDT



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]


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.