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,FREEMAIL_FROM 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,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-22 21:06:08 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: snarflemike@yahoo.com (Mike Silva) Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems Date: 22 Dec 2003 21:06:08 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <20619edc.0312222106.3b369547@posting.google.com> References: <3fe00b82.90228601@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <3FE026A8.3CD6A3A@yahoo.com> <3bf1uvg2ntadvahfud2rg6ujk24sora6gr@4ax.com> <2u3auvogde8ktotlaq0ldiaska3g416gus@4ax.com> <20619edc.0312221020.3fd1b4ee@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.121.195.135 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1072155968 2696 127.0.0.1 (23 Dec 2003 05:06:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:06:08 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.arch.embedded:5984 comp.lang.ada:3735 Date: 2003-12-22T21:06:08-08:00 List-Id: Alan Balmer wrote in message news:... > On 22 Dec 2003 10:20:04 -0800, snarflemike@yahoo.com (Mike Silva) > wrote: > > >"tanya" wrote in message news:... > > > >> As for using C, it is a simple language that can be and is used safely by > >> many people. > > > >I think a more interesting question is: given a particular quality of > >programming talent and fixed amounts of time and money, how will > >software written in C fare against software written in "better" (as > >determined by safety-critical industry concensus) languages? I think > >the evidence is overwhelming that it will fare quite badly, meaning it > >will cost more and/or take more time and/or and have more residual > >errors. > > > Sounds interesting. Can you provide references to such evidence, > obtained under the stated conditions? I think the Ada and SPARK communities can, which is why I've added comp.lang.ada to this thread. For example, here's reference to a 100:1 residual error reduction between C and SPARK, and a 10:1 reduction between C and Ada, with all code having been previously certified to DO178B level A: http://www.sparkada.com/downloads/Mar2002Amey.pdf Some more interesting reading (note that MISRA acknowledges that there are better languages than C for safety-critical work): http://www.sparkada.com/downloads/misracatsil4reader.pdf This document has a table of language recommendations (search for "Language Recommendations (IEC 1508)" ). C is only recommended for SIL1, while it is not recommended for SIL3 and SIL4: https://www.cis.strath.ac.uk/teaching/ug/classes/52.422/programming.languages.doc Mike