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: 1014db,b39287f49873bab5 X-Google-Thread: 109fba,f23beed6d550d20d X-Google-Thread: 103376,aaee47ff04b98ae5 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,gid109fba,gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-25 13:38:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news3.optonline.net!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-01!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Jack Klein Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: "Ravenscar-like" profile for C/C++ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:37:23 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <408c0ce4$0$15674$626a14ce@news.free.fr> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.646 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.c:32069 comp.lang.c++:31586 comp.lang.ada:7484 Date: 2004-04-25T15:37:23-05:00 List-Id: On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 21:12:31 +0200, "Marc Le Roy" wrote in comp.lang.c++: > Ioannis Vranos wrote: > > > There is no reason for such a subset in C++. Use the part of C++ that > > fits your needs. > > It seems that you don't know very well the world of high integrity systems, > especially the ones that require certification according to standards like > DO178B level A ;-) It is true that Ioannis completely misunderstood the question. > You should have a look to this document: > http://polaris.dit.upm.es/~str/proyectos/ork/documents/RP_ug.pdf > especially to section 2, that explain why such a restrictive ADA profile has > been defined. You should understand that anything in that document is irrelevant in comp.lang.c++, and your question just as off-topic here as it was in comp.lang.c. Even if there were a similar document for C and/or C++, it would be off-topic in comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++. > It is true that the problems in relation with tasking do not exist in C++ > because tasking is not part of the C++ standard, but other remains. In fact, > having a good experience of using both C and C++ in real time projects [yes, > they are different languages ;-) ], I have a good idea of what can or cannot > be used in safety critical systems. But I am pretty sure that both my > customer and certification authorities will have a greater confidence in a > established standard than in my opinion :-) > > Marc Whatever "established standards" there might or might not be, they would be off-topic in both comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++, unless they were part of ISO 9899 and/or ISO 14882. This discussion, as I already pointed out, belongs in groups like news:comp.programming and news:comp.software-eng. Language subsetting, for whatever purpose, is not defined by the ISO standard for either C or C++, and is not topical here. Nor is safety critical programming. -- Jack Klein Home: http://JK-Technology.Com FAQs for comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/ alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html