IEC Certification Kit

Polyspace Bug FinderTM Reference

Workflow
R2015b

How to Contact MathWorks

Latest news:

www.mathworks.com

Sales and services:

www.mathworks.com/sales_and_services

User community:

www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral

Technical support:

www.mathworks.com/support/contact_us

Phone:

508-647-7000

The MathWorks, Inc.

3 Apple Hill Drive
Natick, MA 01760-2098
IEC Certification Kit: Polyspace Bug FinderTM Reference Workflow

COPYRIGHT 20132015 by The MathWorks, Inc.

The software described in this document is furnished under a license agreement. The software may be used or copied only under
the terms of the license agreement. No part of this manual may be photocopied or reproduced in any form without prior written
consent from The MathWorks, Inc.
FEDERAL ACQUISITION: This provision applies to all acquisitions of the Program and Documentation by, for, or through the
federal government of the United States. By accepting delivery of the Program or Documentation, the government hereby agrees
that this software or documentation qualifies as commercial computer software or commercial computer software documentation
as such terms are used or defined in FAR 12.212, DFARS Part 227.72, and DFARS 252.227-7014. Accordingly, the terms and
conditions of this Agreement and only those rights specified in this Agreement, shall pertain to and govern the use, modification,
reproduction, release, performance, display, and disclosure of the Program and Documentation by the federal government (or
other entity acquiring for or through the federal government)and shall supersede any conflicting contractual terms or conditions.
If this License fails to meet the governments needs or is inconsistent in any respect with federal procurement law, the
government agrees to return the Program and Documentation, unused, to The MathWorks, Inc.
Trademarks
MATLAB and Simulink are registered trademarks of The MathWorks, Inc. See www.mathworks.com/trademarks for a
list of additional trademarks. Other product or brand names may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective
holders.
Patents
MathWorks products are protected by one or more U.S. patents. Please see www.mathworks.com/patents for more
information.

Revision History
September 2013
March 2014
October 2014
March 2015
September 2015

New for Version 3.2 (Applies to Release 2013b)

Revised for Version 3.3 (Applies to Release 2014a)
Revised for Version 3.4 (Applies to Release 2014b)
Revised for Version 3.5 (Applies to Release 2015a)
Revised for IEC Certification Kit Version 3.6 (Applies to Release 2015b)

Contents
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 1-2
2 Integration of Polyspace Bug Finder into the Software Life Cycle .................................................. 2-1
2.1 Workflow Overview ................................................................................................................ 2-2
2.2 Tool Use Cases ........................................................................................................................ 2-5
[PBF_UC1] Static analysis of C/C++ code to assess compliance with coding standards ............ 2-5
[PBF_UC2] Static analysis of C/C++ code to determine code size and complexity metrics ....... 2-5
[PBF_UC3] Determination of software quality metrics ............................................................... 2-5
[PBF_UC4] Static analysis of C/C++ code to assess interface between components .................. 2-6
[PBF_UC5] Static analysis of C/C++ code to detect systematic and potential software defects . 2-6
Applicable ISO 26262, IEC 61508, and EN 50128 Requirements............................................... 2-6
2.3 Error Prevention and Detection Measures ............................................................................... 2-8
[M1] Preceding or Subsequent Dynamic Verification (Testing) of the Software ........................ 2-8
[M2] Specified Procedure for Corrective Action on Failure of Source Code Analysis ............... 2-8
[M_MISC1] Revision Control and Configuration Management to Identify the Artifacts to be
Analyzed; Use of Checksums ...................................................................................................... 2-8
[M_MISC2] Competency of the Project Team ............................................................................ 2-8
[M_MISC3] Adherence to Installation Instructions; Integrity of Tool Installation ..................... 2-9
[M_MISC4] Analysis of Available Bug Report Information ....................................................... 2-9
3 Additional Considerations ................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Options Impacting Verification ............................................................................................... 3-2
3.2 Configuration Management and Revision Control .................................................................. 3-3
3.3 Competency of the Project Team ............................................................................................ 3-4
3.4 Installation Integrity and Release Compatibility ..................................................................... 3-5
3.5 Bug Reporting ......................................................................................................................... 3-6
3.6 Deviation from the Reference Workflow ................................................................................ 3-7
3.7 Integration with the Software Safety Life Cycle ..................................................................... 3-8
4 Workflow Overview......................................................................................................................... 4-1
5 Conformance Demonstration Template ........................................................................................... 5-1
6 References ........................................................................................................................................ 6-1

vi

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview
Polyspace Bug Finder supports the detection of MISRA C:2004, MISRA C:2012, MISRA
C++:2008, and JSF++ coding standard violations in embedded software written in the C and
C++ programming languages.
The product also generates code size and complexity metrics and produces reports that you can
use to monitor and help improve code reliability and quality.
This document provides a reference workflow for Polyspace Bug Finder. In particular, it
describes how to:

Leverage the coding standard compliance analysis, code size and complexity metrics
determination, and software quality metrics determination capabilities of Polyspace
Bug Finder in the software life cycle

Check that these capabilities are functioning as expected

This workflow addresses handwritten, automatically generated, and mixed code. It is applicable
for developing code as well as for auditing code received from others.
Note If you are verifying only generated C or C++ code, see the Embedded Coder reference
workflow provided in IEC Certification Kit: Embedded Coder Reference Workflow before using
this document. Polyspace Bug Finder products provide added assurance to the reference
workflow for models and generated code.
The reference workflow presented in this document describes activities intended to comply with
applicable requirements of the overall software safety lifecycles defined by IEC 61508-3 [1],
ISO 26262 [2], and EN 50128 [3] respectively, as they relate to verification and analysis of
handwritten, generated, or mixed source code. The workflow addresses risk levels ASIL A ASIL D according to ISO 26262, SIL 1 - SIL 3 according to IEC 61508, and SIL 0 - SIL 4
according to EN 50128.
The document is organized as follows:
Chapter 2, Integration of Polyspace Bug Finder into the Software Life Cycle provides a
reference workflow for the Polyspace Bug Finder tool. It describes reference use cases and
measures to prevent or detect potential tool errors.
Chapter 3, Additional Considerations describes tool options that impact verification results,
and other considerations such as tailoring and bug reporting.
Chapter 4, Workflow Overview summarizes the workflow in a tabular way.

1-2

 Chapter 5, Conformance Demonstration Template references a template that can be used to

demonstrate conformance with this reference workflow.
Chapter 6, References lists the standards and guidelines referenced in this document
Disclaimer While adhering to the recommendations in this document will reduce the risk that
an error is introduced in development and not be detected, it is not a guarantee that the system
being developed will be safe. Conversely, if some of the recommendations in this document are
not followed, it does not mean that the system being developed will be unsafe.

1-3

1-4

2 Integration of Polyspace Bug

Finder into the Software Life
Cycle

2.1 Workflow Overview

This section describes use cases for the following capabilities of Polyspace Bug Finder as part of
the software life cycle:

Coding standard compliance analysis

Code size and complexity metrics determination
Software quality metrics determination

During the development of embedded application software, C or C++ code can be used to
implement the required functionality. The source code can be the result of manual
implementation (see upper part of Figure 1) or automatic code generation (see lower part of
Figure 1) or a combination of both. Handwritten source code and source code created using code
generation can be combined to create the application software for an embedded system.

2-2

Figure 1: Software life cycle (development activities and artifacts)1,2

You can use the coding standard compliance analysis, code size and complexity metrics
determination, and software quality metrics determination capabilities of Polyspace Bug Finder
to statically analyze C or C++ source code regardless of its origin. Figure 2 identifies the
development artifacts that can be verified or analyzed by Polyspace Bug Finder.

Solid arrows in the figure indicate the succession of software development activities.

The model uses for production code generation can contain hand-written source code. For example: C code contained in user
S-functions. This mixed-code use case is indicated by the dashed arrow in the figure.

2-3

Figure 2: Integration of source code analysis into the software life cycle
Note The source code analysis capabilities of Polyspace Bug Finder can be augmented with
additional analysis and verification capabilities for source code provided by Polyspace Code
Prover. For additional information, refer to:
IEC Certification Kit: Polyspace Code Prover Reference Workflow, R2015b

Note For generated code, this workflow can also be used to provide added assurance to the one
described in
IEC Certification Kit: Embedded Coder Reference Workflow, R2015b

2-4

2.2 Tool Use Cases

It is assumed that the Polyspace Bug Finder tool is used as described by one or more of the
following use cases:

[PBF_UC1] Static analysis of C/C++ code to assess

compliance with coding standards
The Polyspace Bug Finder tool is used to statically analyze C or C++ source code to assess
compliance with coding standards such as:

MISRA-C:2004, MISRA-C:2012, MISRA AC AGC

MISRA C++
JSF ++

Coding standard compliance analysis can be applied to handwritten as well as generated source
code.

[PBF_UC2] Static analysis of C/C++ code to determine

code size and complexity metrics
The Polyspace Bug Finder tool is used to determine size and complexity metrics for C or C++
source code, including:

Comment density of a source file

Cyclomatic complexity
Number of lines, parameters, call levels, etc. in a function

Size and complexity metrics can be determined for handwritten as well as generated source
code. For more information about determining size and complexity metrics, see the Polyspace
Bug Finder Users Guide, R2015b.

[PBF_UC3] Determination of software quality metrics

The Polyspace Bug Finder tool is used to define, determine, and report quality metrics for C or
C++ source code, including thresholds for coding rules, code metrics and reports. The reports
are based on analysis and verification results provided by Polyspace Code Prover and Polyspace
Bug Finder.
Software quality metrics can be applied to handwritten as well as generated source code.

2-5

Note The analysis and verification results provided by Polyspace Bug Finder can be used to
assess the quality of the C or C++ source code with respect to defined software quality goals, for
example Software Quality Objectives SQO-1 to SQO-6 according to [4].

[PBF_UC4] Static analysis of C/C++ code to assess

interface between components
The Polyspace Bug Finder tool is used to measure the interface size and detect interface errors
between components.
Polyspace Bug Finder provides the following information:

Function-call with an incorrect number of arguments.

Function-call with an incorrect type of argument.

This analysis can be applied to handwritten and generated source code.

[PBF_UC5] Static analysis of C/C++ code to detect

systematic and potential software defects
The Polyspace Bug Finder is used to provide static code analysis to detect overflow, divide-byzero, out-of-bounds array access, and other defects in the source code.
This verification uses formal-methods based on abstract interpretation techniques. It can be
applied to handwritten as well as generated source code.

Applicable ISO 26262, IEC 61508, and EN 50128

Requirements
Using Polyspace Bug Finder to perform the verification and analysis activities described in the
above use cases supports a variety of objectives and measures listed in functional safety
standards.
ISO 26262, IEC 61508, and EN 50128 techniques and measures that can be supported by using
Polyspace Bug Finder are described in:

IEC Certification Kit: Model-Based Design for ISO 26262

IEC Certification Kit: Model-Based Design for IEC 61508
IEC Certification Kit: Model-Based Design for EN 50128

2-6

In these documents, for information on use cases, refer to items labeled with:

Polyspace Bug Finder MISRA-C checker for use cases [PBF_UC1], [PBF_UC4],
[PBF_UC5]

Polyspace Bug Finder Code metrics and Polyspace Code Prover Code metrics
for use cases [PBF_UC2], [PBF_UC3], [PBF_UC4]

2-7

2.3 Error Prevention and Detection Measures

It is assumed that the user carries out the following measures to check the seamless functioning
of the verification and analysis capabilities provided by Polyspace Code Prover and to verify
their results.

[M1] Preceding or Subsequent Dynamic Verification

(Testing) of the Software
Before or after verifying or analyzing the source code with Polyspace Bug Finder:

Dynamically verify (test) the executable code corresponding to the C or C++ source
code.

[M2] Specified Procedure for Corrective Action on Failure

of Source Code Analysis
After verifying or analyzing the source code with Polyspace Bug Finder:

Analyze the identified issues using a defined procedure for corrective action.

The procedure for corrective action includes manual analysis and review of the issues
uncovered.

[M_MISC1] Revision Control and Configuration

Management to Identify the Artifacts to be Analyzed; Use
of Checksums
Apply configuration management to the artifacts to be verified or analyzed using Polyspace Bug
Finder.

[M_MISC2] Competency of the Project Team

Those carrying out verification or analysis activities using Polyspace Bug Finder shall be
competent for the activities undertaken.

2-8

[M_MISC3] Adherence to Installation Instructions;

Integrity of Tool Installation
Adhere to the installation instructions for Polyspace Bug Finder (including dependent tools) and
verify the version and integrity of the tool.
Validate modifications or additions made to the shipping product(s), if applicable.

[M_MISC4] Analysis of Available Bug Report Information

Assess and analyze bug report information for Polyspace Bug Finder provided by MathWorks
and comply with the recommendations and workarounds, if applicable.

2-9

2-10

3 Additional Considerations
When implementing this reference workflow, consider the following topics:

3.1 Options Impacting Verification

The options you select in your Polyspace project impact your analysis results. The options
should be justified and selected to fit the needs of the project.
For more information on Polyspace options, see the Polyspace Bug Finder Reference, R2015b.

3-2

3.2 Configuration Management and Revision Control

Configuration management shall be applied to the artifacts to be verified or validated, as well as
to other work products specified in the respective standard or in this document.

3-3

3.3 Competency of the Project Team

As described in Software Quality Objectives for Source Code [4], Section 3.2.2:

Those carrying out coding and verification activities shall be competent for the
activities undertaken.
Coding and verification activities should be conducted by independent roles.

The applicable safety standard may provide additional guidance on the required degree of
independence.

3-4

3.4 Installation Integrity and Release Compatibility

The tool user shall adhere to the installation instructions for Polyspace Bug Finder (including
dependent tools).
The tool user shall verify the version of Polyspace Bug Finder and the integrity of the tools
installation (including dependent tools).
Note You can use the ver command in MATLAB to display the current versions of
MATLAB, Polyspace Bug Finder, Polyspace Code Prover, and other MathWorks products.
The tool user shall validate modifications or additions to shipping product(s), if applicable.

3-5

3.5 Bug Reporting

The tool user shall assess bug report information provided by the tool vendors and comply with
the recommendations and workarounds, if applicable.
After deployment of the application under development, bug report information shall also be
assessed by the tool user on a regular basis.
The tool user shall carry out corrective actions if deployed applications are affected by bugs in
the tools identified after deployment.
Issues with Polyspace Bug Finder shall be reported.
Note

You can use the bug reports section of the MathWorks web site

www.mathworks.com/support/bugreports to view and report bugs related to Polyspace

Bug Finder.

Note You can use the IEC Certification Kit Model Advisor check Display bug reports for
Polyspace Bug Finder to display bug report information for this product.
The tool user shall validate modifications or additions to shipping product(s), if applicable.

3-6

3.6 Deviation from the Reference Workflow

In some instances, deviation from the reference workflow explained in this document might
occur. In these cases, a defined deviation procedure shall be used to document and justify
deviations from the workflow.

3-7

3.7 Integration with the Software Safety Life Cycle

The application-specific verification and validation activities shall be integrated with the overall
software safety life cycle for the application under consideration.
The applicable safety standard provides additional guidance on additional objectives and
requirements for the overall software safety life cycle.

3-8

4 Workflow Overview

Table A.1 Objectives, Prerequisites, and Work Products

Activity

Objective

Prerequisites

Coding standard
compliance analysis

Demonstrate compliance C source code (e.g. .c and .h Raw code analysis results
of C or C++ source code files) or C++ source (e.g. .cpp with coding standard
with coding standards
and .hpp files) code to be
violations (MISRA-Canalyzed
summary-report.xml,
MISRA-CPP-summary Polyspace configuration and
report.xml, JSFproject information (.cfg and
summary-report.xml)
.ppm files)
List of coding standard rules
to be checked
Procedures for corrective
action

Work Products

Reviewed and commented

code analysis results
(MISRA-C-summaryreport.xml, MISRACPP-summaryreport.xml, JSFsummary-report.xml)
Analyzed C or C++ source
code

Code size and

complexity metrics
determination

Determine size and

complexity metrics for
C or C++ source code

C source code (e.g. .c and .h Code metrics results

files) or C++ source (e.g. .cpp (Code_Metrics.xml)
and .hpp files) code to be
Analyzed C or C++ source
analyzed
code
Polyspace configuration and
project information (.cfg and
.ppm files)
Procedures for corrective
action

Software quality
Define, determine, and
metrics determination report quality metrics
for C or C++ source
code based on analysis
results provided by
Polyspace Bug Finder

C source code (e.g. .c and .h Software quality level for the

files) or C++ source (e.g. .cpp application
and .hpp files) code to be
Software quality objectives
analyzed
for each module
Analysis results provided by
Software quality metrics
Polyspace Bug Finder
results

4-2

5 Conformance Demonstration
Template
To justify that the requirements outlined in this document have been satisfied, you must provide
evidence for the activities that have been carried out.
The IEC Certification Kit product provides an editable Conformance Demonstration Template that can
be used to demonstrate conformance with the parts of ISO 26262-6, IEC 61508-3, or EN 50128
covered in this document.
To access the conformance demonstration template, on the MATLAB command line, type
certkitiec to open the Artifacts Explorer. The template is in Polyspace Bug Finder.

For each technique or measure:

In the third column, state to what degree you applied the technique or measure for the
application under consideration by using one of the phrases Used, Used to a limited degree,
or Not used.

In the fourth column, state how you used the technique or measure in the application under
consideration. If the reference workflow includes alternative means for compliance, indicate
what variant you used. In addition, enter a reference to the document (for example, test
report or review documentation) that satisfies the requirement.

5-2

6 References
[1] IEC 61508-3:2010. International Standard IEC 61508 Functional safety of electrical / electronic /
programmable electronic safety-related systems Part 3: Software requirements. Second edition,
2010.
[2] ISO 26262-6:2011. Road vehicles Functional safety Part 6: Product development: software
level. International Standard, 2011.
[3] EN 50128:2011. Railway applications - Communication, signalling and processing systems Software for railway control and protection systems. International Standard 2011.
[4] The MathWorks. Software Quality Objectives for Source Code. Version 3.0, 2012.