"In 1998 that standard had a Rule No. 70 called -- I don't remember the exact language. But function should call
themselves. And the rules basically are the same in
but they changed the numbering system, so in the
standard this rule, same rule is No. 16.2. So this
violation of the MISRA C rule."
"What was NASA's view about this recursion? A So NASA's view, NASA was concerned about stack -- possible stack overflow. They had a couple of pages devoted to it, about five pages. I pulled some quotes here. Recursion could exhaust the stack space leading to memory corruption and run time failures that may be
Yes. In what way? The stack can overflow due to this recursion in the Camry. And create memory corruption? And that would create memory corruption, that's difficult to test -- detect in testing."
Man, some elementary stuff here. They changed the specs numbering and did not update their manuals as well as forgetting that recursion in very costly in memory and could overwrite the stack... Jee, these are things a C programmer learns from day one, even in CS50...
"What was NASA's view about this recursion? A So NASA's view, NASA was concerned about stack -- possible stack overflow. They had a couple of pages devoted to it, about five pages. I pulled some quotes here. Recursion could exhaust the stack space leading to memory corruption and run time failures that may be Yes. In what way? The stack can overflow due to this recursion in the Camry. And create memory corruption? And that would create memory corruption, that's difficult to test -- detect in testing."
Man, some elementary stuff here. They changed the specs numbering and did not update their manuals as well as forgetting that recursion in very costly in memory and could overwrite the stack... Jee, these are things a C programmer learns from day one, even in CS50...