6 ms·
Not super helpful for c++. Note the previous MISRA std. predates “modern” c++, as do some others.
by ska 3y ago
Not super helpful for c++.
Note the previous MISRA std. predates “modern” c++, as do some others.
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoAh, my bad, I misread the titles as being MIRA C, not C++.
- pjmlp 3y agoAdditionally this is the update for C++17.
- Longhanks 3y ago...which has been surpassed by two ISO standards already, with the third one on the road.
- lichtenberger 3y agoAt least they are already discussing the next version.
- ska 3y agoThat’s not really a big deal in this context. Getting over the 2011 change was a big jump, and basically makes modern c++ usable for many more projects. Lots of toolchains are pretty conservative also, 2017 is pretty new there. And much like the ISO standard, updates should be a lot easier now.
- pjmlp 3y agoYou will hardly find a C++ compiler that is 100% C++17 compliant, lesser so with those later standards. Currently all C++ implementations are lagging behind ISO, as all major commercial contributors focus in other stacks, and take C++14 / C++17 as good enough for their in-house use of C++. The bigger three have lost steam, while everyone else is even further behind .
- tambre 3y agoIs there anything that GCC is missing? Looks complete to me [0]. Everything besides modules is also there for C++20 [1]. I'm at an automotive startup and we've been using a few C++26 features since summer already. [0] https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support/17 https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support/17 [0] https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support/20 https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support/20
- pjmlp 3y agoLast time I tried C++17 parallel STL algorithms, I wasn't so lucky. Then there is the whole issue that many libraries authors cannot set in stone just one compiler / OS.
- qznc 3y agoAre you ISO26262-compliant and your software is ASIL-A or higher? If no, why would you care about MISRA? If yes, how did you qualify a recent GCC? Safety-critical automotive software development depends on tool qualification, which is often a lot of tedious work. There must be a spec, there must be tests, there must be proof that the tests cover the full spec, you must have a process to inform users about bugs. There is no free compiler which provides this.
- tambre 3y agoNot yet compliant, but working on it. There's quite a few ASIL-D components too. We don't use GCC but rather tip-of-the-tree LLVM. Embedded is a completely separate and different mess using whatever the vendor ships for a particular microcontroller. So far our safety guys haven't seen any issues with tool qualification besides requiring everything to be documented and the whole system to be re-tested in case of any tool changes.
- zamadatix 3y agoThis metric isn't really useful. This disregards any value of say a compiler implementing 99% of all features ever announced, including draft C++26 features, because it's missing a single C++17 feature preventing it from saying it's fully compliant so we shouldn't bother reading about anything but old stuff. The big 3 already support features from C++23 worth learning about https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support Obviously you can't always use that, but most places with a C++ compiler today support at least some useful features past C++17.
- f1shy 3y agoI don‘t care what the Standard says. I care about what my compiler can do.