We are running a survey to help us improve the experience for all of our members. If you see the survey appear, please take the time to tell us about your experience if you can.
MISRA stands for "Motor Industry Software Reliability Association". IAR has an Embedded Workbench which I believe is a Tester to verify the implementation for the MISRA C rules.
Does KEIL have a such a tool?
If there a PDF document available that spells out the rules. I have search and all I can find are test suites.
I can not even imagine to apply each and every 'rule' in MISRA C but to state it is 'bullshit' is stating that every rule is 'wrong' which even you must admit is not true. There are 'rules' in MISRA C that makes for better software
Have you actually read the MISRA C guidelines?
"... but there comes a point where these flags gets very hard to read."
And thus become a potential source of errors themselves when the logic they control is not obvious.
Jack Sprat is a blabbering idiot that - without any such knowledge - claim to know what i do and do not do and I do not show such individuals diddlysquat.
Erik
So, have you read the MISRA C guidelines?
"Have you actually read the MISRA C guidelines?"
Why did you only challenge Erik with that?
Why did you not challenge o salvatore - who made the original unsubstantiated comment, "MISRA is bullshit"
It may or may not be true, but nobody should make such a sweeping statement without any kind of supporting argument!
Because Jack Sprat gets a kick out of being provocative, and because he know that Erik has a problem letting go of challenges. In short, Jack Sprat is a troll.
sir jack
please not be pick on sir eric lots
he is decedes old of knowlege and is wise and good adviice sometime
he help me before when i not know programing as profesional you see
he is good freind yes
"Jack Sprat is a troll."
No - surely not?!
The thought had never even occurred to me...
;-)
It wasn't a challenge, it was a simple question.
I would have thought that the majority of readers can see that post for what it is without my having to point it out.
Agreed. In addition, that argument should have a basis in fact rather than opinion or conjecture.
Erik!
I thought that you had promised us to ignore all posts from Jack Sprat. He is feeding on your responses. It really doesn't matter what you write in them. It's enough for him that you respond.
And that's the problem I see about the MISRA ruleset. It is not intended to reduce errors, but to eliminate ambiguities and implementation-specific behavior of C - even at the cost of introducing additional sources of errors and degrading performance significantly.
That's not the case. I persist in the hope of getting a sensible response which would clear up the mis-information he posts. Taking this thread as an example:
A discussion of the MISRA C guidelines takes place. Then, Erik posts the following:
I can not even imagine to apply each and every 'rule' in MISRA C but to state it is 'bullshit' is stating that every rule is 'wrong' which even you must admit is not true. There are 'rules' in MISRA C that makes for better software and I just wish the above humuurus definition was the true one. I know nothing worse that C based on "artistic freedom"
He is commenting on the MISRA C guidelines in such a way that the reader would assume he knows what they are, when of course he hasn't read the document and is actually commenting on what he imagines they might be. This would be fine if he qualified his comments with 'I haven't read the guidelines, but...' in which case the reader would know that his comments should be ignored.
It is also somewhat ironic that he is usually the first person to demand that the questioner should read the manual, when he seems so reluctant to do so himself.
when of course he hasn't read the document
Of course? are you psychic.
There is no way in hades I am going to satisfy a smoked sardine (a sprat) with an answer.