| ??? 06/19/12 11:13 Read: times |
#187789 - Using tools that only supports C? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Oliver Sedlacek said:
I've done a few (16 bit) embedded systems and coded them in C++. The executables came in at 80kB to 250kB, but that included embedded FPGA configurations.
I like C++, but I'm now doing mostly straight C on 32 bit processors. This is mostly because we've found it easier to verify correctness in straight C. Straight logic is normally easier to verify than twisted logic ;) Are you using support tools that does support C, but not C++, so they can't scan and analyze your code if you use C++? For a human, it shouldn't be harder to verify correctness in C++ than in C, as long as the C++ code doesn't make use of obfuscating constructs. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Who the hell uses C++ in embedded systems... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| So? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| beware of (verbal) inflation. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not as many as some would think. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 2% don't know | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Same same | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Surveys | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Me! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Using tools that only supports C? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Tools and MISRA | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| C++ "better than C" for embedded systems | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| as far as the '51 goes | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| As far as '51 goes - C++ is still viable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| class vs source | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I did say "smallish" | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Overkill? | 01/01/70 00:00 |