Revision as of 08:43, 8 July 2023 edit Widefox (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 110,632 edits m →Rationale: link ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:29, 11 September 2023 edit undo Lightbloom (talk \| contribs) 357 edits MOS:RELTIME Next edit →
Line 18: # Automotive & Machines (functional safety features form an integral part of each automotive product development phase, [[ISO 26262]], section 8). A study in 2012 by VDC Research reported that 28.7% of the embedded software engineers surveyed ~~currently~~ use static analysis tools and 39.7% expect to use them within 2 years.<ref> {{cite web \| title=Automated Defect Prevention for Embedded Software Quality \| last=VDC Research \| publisher=VDC Research \| date=2012-02-01 \| url=http://alm.parasoft.com/embedded-software-vdc-report/ \| access-date=2012-04-10 \| url-status=live \| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120411211422/http://alm.parasoft.com/embedded-software-vdc-report/ \| archive-date=2012-04-11 }}</ref> A study from 2010 found that 60% of the interviewed developers in European research projects made at least use of their basic IDE built-in static analyzers. However, only about 10% employed an additional other (and perhaps more advanced) analysis tool.<ref>Prause, Christian R., René Reiners, and Silviya Dencheva. "Empirical study of tool support in highly distributed research projects." Global Software Engineering (ICGSE), 2010 5th IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2010 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ielx5/5581168/5581493/05581551.pdf</ref>

Static program analysis: Difference between revisions