MISRA-C++

[Chris Hills]

MISRA is looking at doing a MISRA-C++ This is because they were asked to
do it by a lot of people in industry.

They are looking for some people to make up the team (based in the UK)
The team will be made up of experienced industrial high-integrity C++ sw
engineers. They are looking at meeting once a month for about a year.

 

[Victor Bazarov]

Chris Hills wrote:
[...]

They are looking for some people to make up the team (based in the UK)
The team will be [..]

You may be looking in a wrong place. Try misc.jobs.offered.

If you're not looking to *hire* people but instead to attract them to
some kind of standardisation process, you might consider posting a bit
more explanation. Just a thought...

 

[Chris Hills]

Chris Hills wrote:
[...]

They are looking for some people to make up the team (based in the UK)
The team will be [..]

You may be looking in a wrong place. Try misc.jobs.offered.
Nope.


If you're not looking to *hire* people but instead to attract them to
some kind of standardisation process, you might consider posting a bit
more explanation. Just a thought...

Sorry I thought everyone knew of MISRA-C and therefore would know what
MISRA-C++ would be. Certainly anyone working in embedded systems or
high-integrity systems should do.

MISRA-C is a coding guideline for embedded and safety related C
primarily in the automotive market but it escaped to be used all over
including medical and aerospace. It has been very successful and is now
used world wide. In fact that is hardly a line of automotive C code
anywhere in the world that is not written to MISRAS-C. MISRA has been
asked t do a C++ version so they are looking for people to take part.

BTW MISRA= Motor Industry SW Reliability Association.


see www.MISRA-C.com, there is nothing on the CPP web site as they have
only just started looking at this as of last week.

 

[Mike Smith]

Sorry I thought everyone knew of MISRA-C and therefore would know what
MISRA-C++ would be. Certainly anyone working in embedded systems or
high-integrity systems should do.

Which would mean that your assumption would have been correct for a
newsgroup dedicated to the development of embedded systems. This is a
newsgroup dedicated to discussion of the ISO standard C++ language.

 

[Howard Hinnant]

Which would mean that your assumption would have been correct for a
newsgroup dedicated to the development of embedded systems. This is a
newsgroup dedicated to discussion of the ISO standard C++ language.

Chris, I find your post quite on topic, and thank you for making it.
And yes, I did see it on comp.arch.embedded as well.

You might also try comp.lang.c++.moderated. It's moderated by
professionals.

-Howard

 

[Chris Hills]

Chris, I find your post quite on topic, and thank you for making it.
And yes, I did see it on comp.arch.embedded as well.

You might also try comp.lang.c++.moderated. It's moderated by
professionals.

-Howard

Thanks Howard.

 

[Chris Hills]

Which would mean that your assumption would have been correct for a
newsgroup dedicated to the development of embedded systems.

I said embedded or high integrity.

This is a
newsgroup dedicated to discussion of the ISO standard C++ language.

Sorry Mike, My mistake, I thought MISRA-C++ was something to do with C++
standardisation. MISRA-C certainly has become a major influence on C.

On the other hand you are probably right. C++ language "experts"
probably want nothing to do with actually using the language.

When you say embedded systems you mean ones using the 32 and 64 bit
processors and RTOS like Linux, Solaris, Unix and Win CE? Systems with
2 gigabyte hard drives and 500 Mb memory?

But as this NG does not do embedded or high integrity I can only assume
you are only interested in low integrity systems

 

[Victor Bazarov]

[...]
On the other hand you are probably right. C++ language "experts"
probably want nothing to do with actually using the language.

You know, I am offended by this remark. Not only have you no idea
where to post or how to post, you also apparently have a very strange
sense of how to behave when your mistakes are pointed out.

MISRA-C++ has NOTHING to do with standardisation of C++, a simple
search on 'comp.std.c++' shows that. One mention of MISRA C, and
mostly in derogatory terms (as you should be aware, since you've
participated in that thread).

[...]

 

[Chris Hills]

[...]
On the other hand you are probably right. C++ language "experts"
probably want nothing to do with actually using the language.

You know, I am offended by this remark. Not only have you no idea
where to post or how to post,

You think it should not be posted here. Myself and another who commented
think it is relevant. On that straw poll I would say you are wrong.

Having been involved in this NG and standards for over 14 years I do
have some idea. So far you are the only person to complain.

you also apparently have a very strange
sense of how to behave when your mistakes are pointed out.

So do you.

MISRA-C++ has NOTHING to do with standardisation of C++,

I beg to differ (as do members of the ISO C++ panel who have contacted
me by email)

Also this is NOT comp.std.c++ but comp.lang.C++ you might have had
slightly more of a point if it was comp.std.c++ but this NG is for c++
in general which definitely includes MISRA-C++

If you don't like it don't read the posts.

a simple
search on 'comp.std.c++' shows that.

As this is the announcement of the START of MISRA-C++ how would there
have been any mention of it previously?

One mention of MISRA C, and
mostly in derogatory terms (as you should be aware, since you've
participated in that thread).

C is not C++. C is off topic here.

Did you have a similar closed mind when EC++ was mentioned in the past.

As both EC++ and MISRA-C++ I expect will be intimately connected with
ISO C++. EC++ is effectivly a standard and MISRA-C++ is likely to
become one if the C version is anything to go by.

 

[Andre Kostur]

[...]
On the other hand you are probably right. C++ language "experts"
probably want nothing to do with actually using the language.

You know, I am offended by this remark. Not only have you no idea
where to post or how to post,

You think it should not be posted here. Myself and another who commented
think it is relevant. On that straw poll I would say you are wrong.

OK... then I vote on Victor's side. I see no Standard C++ content in your
original post. Only a reference to some other group who apparently want to
draw up some coding guidelines, presumably only using Standard C++
facilities. And you follow up with some whiny statement about how the
denizens of comp.lang.c++ don't actually use the language. Very
professional of you.

 

[Mike Smith]

I said embedded or high integrity.

Then find your self a comp.systems.high-integrity newsgroup.

Sorry Mike, My mistake, I thought MISRA-C++ was something to do with C++
standardisation.

Apology accepted. The C++ language is standardized by ISO, not by
MISRA. MISRA can standardize a particular *way of using* the ISO
standard C++ language if they want, but that's not the same thing.

MISRA-C certainly has become a major influence on C.

"Having a major influence on" and "defining the standard for" are not
the same thing.

On the other hand you are probably right. C++ language "experts"
probably want nothing to do with actually using the language.

When you say embedded systems you mean ones using the 32 and 64 bit
processors and RTOS like Linux, Solaris, Unix and Win CE? Systems with
2 gigabyte hard drives and 500 Mb memory?

But as this NG does not do embedded or high integrity I can only assume
you are only interested in low integrity systems

Gee, first you apologize, then you troll/flame/insult. What are we to
think?

When it comes to c.l.c++, my interest is in *the C++ language*, and has
nothing to do with embedded vs. desktop (even though my area of
involvement tends toward the embedded), or high vs. low integrity (and
you bet your ass that my area of involvement tends toward high rather
than low integrity). There's not need for you to get insulting, just
because you posted something to the wrong newsgroup.

 

[Mike Smith]

Chris Hills wrote:

[...]
On the other hand you are probably right. C++ language "experts"
probably want nothing to do with actually using the language.

You know, I am offended by this remark. Not only have you no idea
where to post or how to post,

You think it should not be posted here. Myself and another who commented
think it is relevant. On that straw poll I would say you are wrong.

OK... then I vote on Victor's side.

And I would have thought that my previous post would also have been so
interpreted.

 

[Chris Hills]

Which would mean that your assumption would have been correct for a
newsgroup dedicated to the development of embedded systems. This is a
newsgroup dedicated to discussion of the ISO standard C++ language.

No that would be comp.std.c++
This is a general C++ NG.

 

[Chris Hills]

Chris Hills wrote:
[...]
On the other hand you are probably right. C++ language "experts"
probably want nothing to do with actually using the language.

You know, I am offended by this remark. Not only have you no idea
where to post or how to post,

You think it should not be posted here. Myself and another who commented
think it is relevant. On that straw poll I would say you are wrong.

OK... then I vote on Victor's side. I see no Standard C++ content in your
original post.

Why should there be I was not posting to comp.std.c++ If you want to
only discuss the C++ standard then go there. This is a group to discuss
C++ in general. So the new MISRA C++ is on topic.

Only a reference to some other group who apparently want to
draw up some coding guidelines, presumably only using Standard C++
facilities.

Some other group? MISRA has at the moment the most widely used C coding
standard there is. I think some one worked out there are more copies of
MISRA-C being used than the C99 standard. That is why MISRA were asked
to do the C++ version.

And you follow up with some whiny statement about how the
denizens of comp.lang.c++ don't actually use the language. Very
professional of you.

I asked if the only thing they were interested in was C++
standardisation (in which case the are in the wrong group) or the
practical application of C++

Some one seemed to think that embedded and high integrity C++ had no
place here. Which leaves what? Low integrity?

 

[Victor Bazarov]

No that would be comp.std.c++

No, 'comp.std.c++' discusses C++ Standard. We here discuss Standard C++.

This is a general C++ NG.

There is no such thing as "general C++". I think it's time for you to
read the Welcome message and the FAQ.

 

[Andre Kostur]

<[email protected]>, Victor
Chris Hills wrote:
[...]
On the other hand you are probably right. C++ language "experts"
probably want nothing to do with actually using the language.

You know, I am offended by this remark. Not only have you no idea
where to post or how to post,

You think it should not be posted here. Myself and another who
commented think it is relevant. On that straw poll I would say you
are wrong.

OK... then I vote on Victor's side. I see no Standard C++ content in
your original post.

Why should there be I was not posting to comp.std.c++ If you want to
only discuss the C++ standard then go there. This is a group to
discuss C++ in general. So the new MISRA C++ is on topic.

This is where you appear to be going wrong. You seem to not be able to
see the difference between "discussing the C++ Standard" and "using the
C++ Standard".

Some other group? MISRA has at the moment the most widely used C
coding standard there is. I think some one worked out there are more
copies of MISRA-C being used than the C99 standard. That is why MISRA
were asked to do the C++ version.

Yep. Some other group. Apparently more than one of us has never heard
of them.

I asked if the only thing they were interested in was C++
standardisation (in which case the are in the wrong group) or the
practical application of C++

Nope. Here in clc++ we're interested in the usage of Standard C++.
csc++ deals with the standardization aspect. After they're done with it
is when we start discussing it. 3rd party libraries (for example) are
off-topic. We don't care that they happen to be written in C++.

Some one seemed to think that embedded and high integrity C++ had no
place here. Which leaves what? Low integrity?

No, some one seemed to think that C++ _that is specific to_ embedded and
high integrity has no place here. Similarly C++ _that is specific to_
low integrity is equally off-topic. Here we call that "implementation
and/or platform specific details", and is off-topic (unless we're dealing
with a subset of Standard C++, but then the detail that it is embedded or
not is an irrelevant detail).

 

[Alexander Terekhov]

Victor Bazarov wrote:
[...]

There is no such thing as "general C++". I think it's time for you to
read the Welcome message and the FAQ.

na zabore ... napisan, a tam drova.

</ping>

regards,
alexander.

 

[REH]

OK... then I vote on Victor's side. I see no Standard C++ content in your
original post. Only a reference to some other group who apparently want to
draw up some coding guidelines, presumably only using Standard C++
facilities. And you follow up with some whiny statement about how the
denizens of comp.lang.c++ don't actually use the language. Very
professional of you.

I don't have an opinion as to whether MISRA C++ discussion is OT or
not, but as someone who does write embedded system, I don't care about
a MISRA C++ "standard" anymore than the Embedded C++ "standard." The
only standard I care about (language-wise) is the actual C++ Standard.
Give me that, and I'll decide what parts are proper to use in my
development. So, I guess on that score, I too am with Victor.

REH

 

[LR]

Chris Hills wrote:

[...]
On the other hand you are probably right. C++ language "experts"
probably want nothing to do with actually using the language.

You know, I am offended by this remark. Not only have you no idea
where to post or how to post,

You think it should not be posted here. Myself and another who commented
think it is relevant. On that straw poll I would say you are wrong.

OK... then I vote on Victor's side. I see no Standard C++ content in your
original post.

Why should there be I was not posting to comp.std.c++ If you want to
only discuss the C++ standard then go there. This is a group to discuss
C++ in general.

I don't think that's correct, but perhaps I'm wrong.

> So the new MISRA C++ is on topic.

Could you could please consult the FAQ for this group and tell us if you
think the FAQ can be interpreted such that what you're posting is on topic?

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-post.html#faq-5.9

TIA

LR

 

[Chris Hills]

Chris Hills wrote:

[...]
On the other hand you are probably right. C++ language "experts"
probably want nothing to do with actually using the language.

You know, I am offended by this remark. Not only have you no idea
where to post or how to post,

You think it should not be posted here. Myself and another who commented
think it is relevant. On that straw poll I would say you are wrong.

OK... then I vote on Victor's side. I see no Standard C++ content in your
original post.

Why should there be I was not posting to comp.std.c++ If you want to
only discuss the C++ standard then go there. This is a group to discuss
C++ in general.

I don't think that's correct, but perhaps I'm wrong.

So the new MISRA C++ is on topic.

Could you could please consult the FAQ for this group and tell us if you
think the FAQ can be interpreted such that what you're posting is on topic?

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-post.html#faq-5.9

TIA

it says

"Only post to comp.lang.c++ if your question is about the C++ language
itself. For example, C++ code design, syntax, style, rules, bugs, etc.
Ultimately this means your question must be answerable by looking into
the C++ language definition as determined by the ISO/ANSI C++ Standard
document, and by planned extensions and adjustments"

So yes MISRA-C++ as a subset coding guide is directly relevant to
syntax, style, rules, bugs etc in the ISO C++ standard. Especially the
"planned extensions and adjustments".

However I find the narrow minded view of a few people here breathtaking.

In another NG someone commented on just this sort of attitude that
killed off Pascal and Basic also leading C a long way from it' users to
the extent there have been virtually no compiler implementations of the
C99 standard in the last 6 years.

In fact all three language standards now have little bearing on the
industrial use of those languages.