18-11-2010, 09:44 PM
Hi Lundin,
I agree with you.
This time I think MISRA-C :1998 also had it correct with Rule 90!
Again, I think deviations for the odd case when one cant comply would be preferable to changing the rules to allow bad code to comply.
In my view MISRA-C:1998 is much better than MISRA-C:2004 even if there are a few ambiguities.
My suggestion is to create your own programming standards and use MISRA as a basis. Tighten up the rules in MISRA-C:2004 and don't discount what MISRA-C:1998 had to say!
It is my opinion that MISRA should be used as a minimal set of rules. There are lots more you can add.
I agree with you.
This time I think MISRA-C :1998 also had it correct with Rule 90!
Again, I think deviations for the odd case when one cant comply would be preferable to changing the rules to allow bad code to comply.
In my view MISRA-C:1998 is much better than MISRA-C:2004 even if there are a few ambiguities.
My suggestion is to create your own programming standards and use MISRA as a basis. Tighten up the rules in MISRA-C:2004 and don't discount what MISRA-C:1998 had to say!
It is my opinion that MISRA should be used as a minimal set of rules. There are lots more you can add.
<t></t>