Webinar recap: Static analysis’ role in automotive functional safety

Webinar recap: Static analysis’ role in automotive functional safety

on Jul 24, 14 • by Roy Sarkar • with No Comments

Last week, we held a joint webinar with QNX Software Systems discussing how static analysis plays a key role in automotive functional safety and ISO 26262 (you can watch the recording here). We had developers, testers, architects, and students attend from all over the world and they all had one interest in common:...

Home » Embedded Software, Software Compliance, Static Analysis » Webinar recap: Static analysis’ role in automotive functional safety

Last week, we held a joint webinar with QNX Software Systems discussing how static analysis plays a key role in automotive functional safety and ISO 26262 (you can watch the recording here). We had developers, testers, architects, and students attend from all over the world and they all had one interest in common: better delivery of safe automotive software.

We always try to understand our attendees and here’s an interesting result from one of the polls we ran (based on table 9 of ISO 26262-6, which lists methods of design verification for software units):

Which of the following tools/techniques does your company employ in its development?
(multiple answers allowed)

Static code analysis – 47%
Walk-through – 45%
Formal verification – 35%
Control flow analysis – 31%
Semantic code analysis – 27%
Data flow analysis – 22%

While static code analysis is clearly the most popular choice among those concerned with automotive functional safety, the other end of the spectrum, manual walk-through, is popular as well. It seems that relying on your own two eyes is still considered a reliable approach!

We asked two more questions specific to ISO 26262 and received these responses:

Is your organization currently working on a product that will be certified to the ISO 26262 standard?

No – 48%
Prefer not to say – 31%
Yes – 21%

Which ASIL level is your company most concerned with?
(multiple answers allowed)

ASIL C – 48%
ASIL B – 41%
ASIL A – 33%
ASIL D – 33%

While a large number of our attendees weren’t currently working on an ISO 26262 project (or preferred not to say), there’s quite a spread of interest across all the safety levels. This isn’t surprising given that our customers work on a wide range of automotive systems for different types of end products.

Regardless of safety level, Klocwork’s ISO 26262-certified checkers relieve the time and effort required for tool qualification – fast-forward to 24:10 in the webinar to see how.

For more on how Klocwork helps reduce the effort required to achieve ISO 26262 certification, read the following resources:

Deliver safer & more secure automotive software white paper
Fact sheet: Klocwork automotive overview

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Scroll to top