Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems
From: Alex Colvin (alexc_at_std.com)
Date: 12/29/03
- Next message: Chris Hills: "Re: emulator for 80c51fa?"
- Previous message: Thad Smith: "Re: Precision PWM in microcontroller"
- In reply to: Dave Hansen: "Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems"
- Next in thread: Hyman Rosen: "Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems"
- Reply: Hyman Rosen: "Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems"
- Reply: Martin Krischik: "Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:13:34 +0000 (UTC)
>[...]
>>The C standard explicitly permits accessing one element beyond the end
not exactly. it permits addressing one beyond the end, but not accessing
so
int a[10], *after = &a[10];
is OK, but
a[10]++
isn't
The rule lets you do bounds checks on pointers, even with empty ranges.
-- mac the naïf
- Next message: Chris Hills: "Re: emulator for 80c51fa?"
- Previous message: Thad Smith: "Re: Precision PWM in microcontroller"
- In reply to: Dave Hansen: "Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems"
- Next in thread: Hyman Rosen: "Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems"
- Reply: Hyman Rosen: "Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems"
- Reply: Martin Krischik: "Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]