Re: Adoption of C subset standards

2017-01-10 Thread Jim MacArthur
Thank you everyone who replied to this; all of the points raised are very reasonable so I won't reply individually. I'll feed this information back to our standards group.

Re: Adoption of C subset standards

2017-01-10 Thread David Brown
On 09/01/17 22:17, paul.kon...@dell.com wrote: > >> On Jan 9, 2017, at 4:08 PM, David Brown >> wrote: ... I found a reference to this in MISRA's forums: >> >> >> >> The post and reply are from 4 years ago, but I expect the situation >>

Re: Adoption of C subset standards

2017-01-09 Thread Richard Kenner
> It looks like MISRA should adjust its rules if it wants to support > open source. I can think of no reason why MISRA would want to do that given their goals. Can you?

Re: Adoption of C subset standards

2017-01-09 Thread Paul.Koning
> On Jan 9, 2017, at 4:08 PM, David Brown wrote: > ... > I found a reference to this in MISRA's forums: > > > > The post and reply are from 4 years ago, but I expect the situation is the > same now as then. Basically, MISRA are quite

Re: Adoption of C subset standards

2017-01-09 Thread David Brown
On 09/01/17 20:11, Richard Kenner wrote: I suppose that would be true if you refer to MISRA in the messages. If you don't then you're not using the trademark. The issue isn't the messages. but how you describe what you've done in, say, documentation or ChangeLog entries. If you claim, in any

Re: Adoption of C subset standards

2017-01-09 Thread David Brown
On 09/01/17 19:43, paul.kon...@dell.com wrote: On Jan 9, 2017, at 1:28 PM, Richard Kenner wrote: Regardless of that sort of issue, I think on previous occasions when the topic of MISRA (or other coding standard) checking came up, there has been a general opinion from the gcc developers tha

Re: Adoption of C subset standards

2017-01-09 Thread Richard Kenner
> I suppose that would be true if you refer to MISRA in the messages. > If you don't then you're not using the trademark. The issue isn't the messages. but how you describe what you've done in, say, documentation or ChangeLog entries. If you claim, in any way, that you're checking for "MISRA comp

Re: Adoption of C subset standards

2017-01-09 Thread Paul.Koning
> On Jan 9, 2017, at 1:55 PM, Richard Kenner wrote: > >> But as for a license, it's hard to see why that might be. You can't >> copyright rules (only a particular expression of same, and only to >> the extend that the "sweat of the brow" rule doesn't apply). And it >> doesn't sound like patent

Re: Adoption of C subset standards

2017-01-09 Thread Richard Kenner
> But as for a license, it's hard to see why that might be. You can't > copyright rules (only a particular expression of same, and only to > the extend that the "sweat of the brow" rule doesn't apply). And it > doesn't sound like patentable matter either. That said, if some > outfit thinks it ca

Re: Adoption of C subset standards

2017-01-09 Thread Paul.Koning
> On Jan 9, 2017, at 1:28 PM, Richard Kenner wrote: > >> Regardless of that sort of issue, I think on previous occasions when the >> topic of MISRA (or other coding standard) checking came up, there has >> been a general opinion from the gcc developers that the compiler itself >> is not the best

Re: Adoption of C subset standards

2017-01-09 Thread Richard Kenner
> Regardless of that sort of issue, I think on previous occasions when the > topic of MISRA (or other coding standard) checking came up, there has > been a general opinion from the gcc developers that the compiler itself > is not the best place for this sort of checking - they recommend an > extern

Re: Adoption of C subset standards

2017-01-09 Thread David Brown
On 09/01/17 15:15, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 01/09/2017 08:58 AM, David Brown wrote: > >> I don't know about CERT-C, but one of the challenges of implementing >> MISRA coding standards checking in gcc is that the MISRA documents are >> not free. They are cheap (about $10, I think), but since the

Re: Adoption of C subset standards

2017-01-09 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 9 January 2017 at 14:15, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 01/09/2017 08:58 AM, David Brown wrote: > >> I don't know about CERT-C, but one of the challenges of implementing >> MISRA coding standards checking in gcc is that the MISRA documents are >> not free. They are cheap (about $10, I think), but s

Re: Adoption of C subset standards

2017-01-09 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 9 January 2017 at 14:22, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 9 January 2017 at 14:15, Nathan Sidwell wrote: >> On 01/09/2017 08:58 AM, David Brown wrote: >> >>> I don't know about CERT-C, but one of the challenges of implementing >>> MISRA coding standards checking in gcc is that the MISRA documents are

Re: Adoption of C subset standards

2017-01-09 Thread Nathan Sidwell
On 01/09/2017 08:58 AM, David Brown wrote: I don't know about CERT-C, but one of the challenges of implementing MISRA coding standards checking in gcc is that the MISRA documents are not free. They are cheap (about $10, I think), but since they are not free there are likely to be copyright comp

Re: Adoption of C subset standards

2017-01-09 Thread David Brown
On 09/01/17 12:34, Jim MacArthur wrote: > Hi all, I've become involved in a group which seeks to refine previous > efforts in both safety-critical and secure coding standards (for example > MISRA and CERT-C). We note that in the past MISRA has been declined for > explicit inclusion in GCC but that

Adoption of C subset standards

2017-01-09 Thread Jim MacArthur
Hi all, I've become involved in a group which seeks to refine previous efforts in both safety-critical and secure coding standards (for example MISRA and CERT-C). We note that in the past MISRA has been declined for explicit inclusion in GCC but that parts of it and CERT-C are tested by individ