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

spam@altium.nl (Dick Streefland)
Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:31:03 -0000

          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: spam@altium.nl (Dick Streefland)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:31:03 -0000
Organization: Altium BV
References: 07-09-023
Keywords: embedded

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---------------------------



Post a followup to this message

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