From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f849b,b8d52151b7b306d2 X-Google-Attributes: gidf849b,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,a00006d3c4735d70 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-26 02:49:17 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!skynet.be!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!phaedsys.demon.co.uk!chris From: Chris Hills Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 10:44:07 +0000 Organization: Phaedrus Systems Message-ID: <$km9afA3DB7$EAYO@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> References: <3fe00b82.90228601@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <3FE026A8.3CD6A3A@yahoo.com> <3bf1uvg2ntadvahfud2rg6ujk24sora6gr@4ax.com> <2u3auvogde8ktotlaq0ldiaska3g416gus@4ax.com> <20619edc.0312221020.3fd1b4ee@posting.google.com> <20619edc.0312222106.3b369547@posting.google.com> <45cs9hAbLc6$EAAx@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> <3fe9f0d7.104475725@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <3fea086c.110513550@News.CIS.DFN.DE> NNTP-Posting-Host: phaedsys.demon.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1072435756 11056 80.176.226.26 (26 Dec 2003 10:49:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 10:49:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 M <7y9ouFdz6gbBVVTek6rkWKl0do> Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.arch.embedded:6116 comp.lang.ada:3808 Date: 2003-12-26T10:44:07+00:00 List-Id: In article <3fea086c.110513550@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Dave Hansen writes >On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 20:41:41 +0000, Chris Hills >> >>At least with C there will usually be several commercial compilers and a >>multitude of testing and checking tools. > >I think I said it earlier in this thread: The only processors I'm >aware of that don't have a C or NQC (Not Quite C) compiler are >four-bitters. It's ubiquitous. I like "NQC".... it is a useful TLA as the standards people get in to a tizz when you talk about the C that is on most 8/16 bit embedded compilers. >But C can be, umm, subtle, and static checking tools (particularly >Lint) are IMHO _required_. Sadly, they're not often used. There is NO EXCUSE for not using a static analyser on C. There are free Lints, Commercial ones i.e. PC-Lint is only a couple 100 USD I can't see ANY justification for not using some form of Lint with C. >>It's one thing having a compiler but what about the rest. How many ICE >>support ADA? > >Nit: ICE is hardware. Yes.... of course it is. It is an embedded debugging tool. Somewhat relevant in a discussion on language support in an embedded NG > And the various debuggers I've seen shipped >with most ICE systems don't support C particularly well either. >And I haven't used an ICE in years. I have... several. ICE support C VERY well. As well as (actually better) than simulators. There is little of no similar support for most other languages. There is some for ADA... Years ago I saw some for Pascal and Modula2 but I don't know any supporting them now. If you don't use an ICE how do you debug and test? Regards Chris /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/