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

Marco <prenom_nomus@yahoo.com>
Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:18:54 -0700

          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: Marco <prenom_nomus@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:18:54 -0700
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 07-09-023
Keywords: standards
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.


Post a followup to this message

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