https://forum.misra.org.uk/ Thu, 05 Nov 2026 13:03:18 +0000 MyBB https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1729 Mon, 17 Mar 2025 09:01:12 +0000 Yordan Naydenov]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1729 * concerning the modal verbs used with respect to the guideline categorization. It would be informative for the user of these Guidelines to understand what were the original reasons behind that and why this is still the case. Is it only a matter of distinct Working Groups (which nevertheless share/d some common members), has it to do with maintaining legacy, or something else entirely?

But the more concerning question is, is it planned for future MISRA C editions to adopt the more nuanced wording of the MISRA C++ Guidelines with respect to the guideline categories of "Mandatory", "Required", "Advisory", and "Disapplied"?

Currently, established convention for each of the two documents is such that a guideline is introduced through their respective summary (requirement (MISRA C) / headline (MISRA C++) text) employing one of the following modal verbs, subject to the guideline category (M/R/A/D)†:

• MISRA C : "shall", "shall", "should", "should"
  
• MISRA C++‡ : "must", "shall", "should", n/a§
  

A possible equalization of phrase will ultimately provide for a greater consistency between both sets of documents for the benefit of their mutual user. It would also make it straightforward for the user to unambiguously associate a guideline with its category.

_____

(*) Since introducing the category of "mandatory" in MISRA C++:2023 (October 2023), after it had been introduced in MISRA C:2012, 3rd Edn, March 2013.

(†) Note that guideline re-categorization entails no special treatment in this regard (e.g. substituting one modal auxiliary for another) as it is concerned only with how a guideline are to be handled and applied in a given, concrete project: compliance level claimed for a guideline may be affected due to their revised category but the normative prescription of the guideline, reclassified or not, never alters.

(‡) MISRA C++:2008's category of "Document" ("shall") is not considered.

(§) Note that for the relatively new category of "Disapplied", introduced back in MISRA Compliance:2016 and subsequently added both in MISRA C++:2023 and recently in MISRA C:2025, only the latter actually provides any guideline with such a category. What modal expression will be adopted by future MISRA C++ editions for this fresh category is yet to be seen (could that be "ought (not) to" instead of "should (not)", to further discrimination between guidelines of different category?).]]> * concerning the modal verbs used with respect to the guideline categorization. It would be informative for the user of these Guidelines to understand what were the original reasons behind that and why this is still the case. Is it only a matter of distinct Working Groups (which nevertheless share/d some common members), has it to do with maintaining legacy, or something else entirely?

But the more concerning question is, is it planned for future MISRA C editions to adopt the more nuanced wording of the MISRA C++ Guidelines with respect to the guideline categories of "Mandatory", "Required", "Advisory", and "Disapplied"?

Currently, established convention for each of the two documents is such that a guideline is introduced through their respective summary (requirement (MISRA C) / headline (MISRA C++) text) employing one of the following modal verbs, subject to the guideline category (M/R/A/D)†:

• MISRA C : "shall", "shall", "should", "should"
  
• MISRA C++‡ : "must", "shall", "should", n/a§
  

A possible equalization of phrase will ultimately provide for a greater consistency between both sets of documents for the benefit of their mutual user. It would also make it straightforward for the user to unambiguously associate a guideline with its category.

_____

(*) Since introducing the category of "mandatory" in MISRA C++:2023 (October 2023), after it had been introduced in MISRA C:2012, 3rd Edn, March 2013.

(†) Note that guideline re-categorization entails no special treatment in this regard (e.g. substituting one modal auxiliary for another) as it is concerned only with how a guideline are to be handled and applied in a given, concrete project: compliance level claimed for a guideline may be affected due to their revised category but the normative prescription of the guideline, reclassified or not, never alters.

(‡) MISRA C++:2008's category of "Document" ("shall") is not considered.

(§) Note that for the relatively new category of "Disapplied", introduced back in MISRA Compliance:2016 and subsequently added both in MISRA C++:2023 and recently in MISRA C:2025, only the latter actually provides any guideline with such a category. What modal expression will be adopted by future MISRA C++ editions for this fresh category is yet to be seen (could that be "ought (not) to" instead of "should (not)", to further discrimination between guidelines of different category?).]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1621 Tue, 10 May 2022 11:43:37 +0000 lubomir.milko]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1621
So, do you have some other recommended ways of storing the MISRA documentation that allow showing only the content in web browser, without downloading and where only selected people can access it, while also being able to create links to specific pages?]]>
So, do you have some other recommended ways of storing the MISRA documentation that allow showing only the content in web browser, without downloading and where only selected people can access it, while also being able to create links to specific pages?]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1586 Thu, 28 Oct 2021 06:16:42 +0000 cgpzs]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1586
The following is stated in the AUTOSAR C++14 guidelines:

> This specification is obsolete and will be removed from the standard in an upcoming
release. The work has been handed over to MISRA and will no longer be maintained
by AUTOSAR.


Since "the work of AUTOSAR C++14 has been handed over  to MISRA", would it make sense/be OK for us to ask questions about AUTOSAR C++14 in this forum? There are some rules that require some clarification and there's no way to contact the authors. 

I know that MISRA is currently working on a new set of C++ guidelines for 202x, combining the work done in the previous MISRA releases and AUTOSAR C++14. I believe being able to ask about AUTOSAR C++14 here would provide valuable feedback to MISRA to incorporate in the new guidelines.

Thanks!]]>
The following is stated in the AUTOSAR C++14 guidelines:

> This specification is obsolete and will be removed from the standard in an upcoming
release. The work has been handed over to MISRA and will no longer be maintained
by AUTOSAR.


Since "the work of AUTOSAR C++14 has been handed over  to MISRA", would it make sense/be OK for us to ask questions about AUTOSAR C++14 in this forum? There are some rules that require some clarification and there's no way to contact the authors. 

I know that MISRA is currently working on a new set of C++ guidelines for 202x, combining the work done in the previous MISRA releases and AUTOSAR C++14. I believe being able to ask about AUTOSAR C++14 here would provide valuable feedback to MISRA to incorporate in the new guidelines.

Thanks!]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1460 Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:04:28 +0000 andream]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1460 https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1388 Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:37:18 +0000 fasoo]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1388 https://www.misra.org.uk/Links/tabid/63/Default.aspx

Please guide me how I can request addition to the page.

Thank you and have a splendid day.

Best

Ray]]> https://www.misra.org.uk/Links/tabid/63/Default.aspx

Please guide me how I can request addition to the page.

Thank you and have a splendid day.

Best

Ray]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1380 Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:13:00 +0000 andream]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1380 https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1378 Fri, 13 Oct 2017 12:53:48 +0000 Hanumanthappa E]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1378 Where and how can download MISRA 2012 guidelines? Please....]]> Where and how can download MISRA 2012 guidelines? Please....]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1332 Thu, 06 Apr 2017 12:31:35 +0000 dg1980]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1332
please reconsider the need for a tool certification process in the future to avoid battles like this one: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/commu...RA_CPP.doc
Any company can offer a MISRA tool these days and it is completely nontransparent for customers how good the support of the standard really is.
Very often, you find large holes in coverage of the standard after you purchased the tool.]]>
please reconsider the need for a tool certification process in the future to avoid battles like this one: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/commu...RA_CPP.doc
Any company can offer a MISRA tool these days and it is completely nontransparent for customers how good the support of the standard really is.
Very often, you find large holes in coverage of the standard after you purchased the tool.]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1315 Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:52:26 +0000 akedintm]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1315 The main file reffered to is MISRA_C2012_Guidelines_for_the_use_of_the_C_language_in_critical_systems.
Then, as far as I understood, Safety/Security related topics brought up the new Ammendment 1 along with Addendum 1 ( Rule mapping ) and Addendum 2.

My question would be, does MISRA and the extensions above cover the entire ISO/IEC TS 17961 descriptions ?
And also, what would the difference be between MISRA with extensions and SEI CERT C Coding Standard ?

Thank you all in advance for the answers !

Best regards, Alex.]]> The main file reffered to is MISRA_C2012_Guidelines_for_the_use_of_the_C_language_in_critical_systems.
Then, as far as I understood, Safety/Security related topics brought up the new Ammendment 1 along with Addendum 1 ( Rule mapping ) and Addendum 2.

My question would be, does MISRA and the extensions above cover the entire ISO/IEC TS 17961 descriptions ?
And also, what would the difference be between MISRA with extensions and SEI CERT C Coding Standard ?

Thank you all in advance for the answers !

Best regards, Alex.]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1262 Tue, 05 Jul 2016 06:07:55 +0000 dg1980]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1262 https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1249 Wed, 25 May 2016 07:52:21 +0000 jzafra]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1249
I am looking for a tool to do compliance checks for MISRA. Preferably with Eclipse IDE plug-in and not too expensive (]]>
I am looking for a tool to do compliance checks for MISRA. Preferably with Eclipse IDE plug-in and not too expensive (]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1245 Fri, 13 May 2016 13:17:36 +0000 Fahmi]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1245 When the MISRA C:2012 Amendment 1 document will be available?

Regards,
Fahmi]]> When the MISRA C:2012 Amendment 1 document will be available?

Regards,
Fahmi]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1202 Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:25:56 +0000 vignesh081191]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1202
The interrupt header file is include in the source file for interrupt usage and we dont get any issue in that
#include

But
We are getting the following error in the declaration of ISR function prototype.
ISR(TIM0_COMPA_vect);
^
Err(9:0926) [S] Expected: ) ,.

Functionality wise the code is working fine. So we have no idea what the QAC is expecting whether it misunderstands the ISR or not?

help me out guys...]]>
The interrupt header file is include in the source file for interrupt usage and we dont get any issue in that
#include

But
We are getting the following error in the declaration of ISR function prototype.
ISR(TIM0_COMPA_vect);
^
Err(9:0926) [S] Expected: ) ,.

Functionality wise the code is working fine. So we have no idea what the QAC is expecting whether it misunderstands the ISR or not?

help me out guys...]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1182 Fri, 22 May 2015 16:03:30 +0000 cweimer]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1182 Thanks]]> Thanks]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1128 Wed, 12 Nov 2014 14:30:59 +0000 igor.gvero]]> https://forum.misra.org.uk/showthread.php?tid=1128 Is there an email address I can use to contact someone who could answer this? Or appropriate board where I can get some information in a timely fashion.

Thank you!
Igor Gvero]]> Is there an email address I can use to contact someone who could answer this? Or appropriate board where I can get some information in a timely fashion.

Thank you!
Igor Gvero]]>