As Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
C89 is a subset thereof, and the problem is also present with
-std=c90.
ANSI C89 and ISO C90 are synonyms.
However, GCC itself does not have a feature to compile to MISRA
(AFAIK) so it makes it difficult to fully comply.
(Though I've wanted to add that feature to GCC for years.)
That's basically blocked because MISRA is not open.
Well, I think MISRA could be added just as warning levels (like
-Wmisra or such, perhaps even two levels of them, as some rules are
mandatory, while other are recommended only), without affecting the
actual compilation result.
How could a GCC
developer review code, fix bugs or confirm bugs if he does not know
what the compiler is supposed to do?
Except he buys an expensive document.
The MISRA C document, when bought as PDF on the web, is just GPB 10 +
VAT, I wouldn't really call that "expensive". The C standard is much
more expensive, yet GCC tries to comply to it. ;-) (It's CHF 238,
where you probably have to add VAT as well.)
While the C standard drafts have always been publically available, the
standard itself used to be sold only either. It's only been later on
that the standard committee decided to publish some drafts that were
effectively the actual C99 standard plus technical corrigenda, but for
C11, you're in the payware boat again. Most standards are not "open"
in a sense that you'd be allowed to give the actual standard document
away to someone else. Standardization bodies refinance themselves by
selling their standards.
I don't think MISRA disallows distributing opensource software that
attempts to comply with it (but I'd have to review their conditions
again if someone is really interested).
No, I'm not a big fan of MISRA, by no means. I'd just wanted to clean
up a bit with the perception that MISRA were something expensive while
you'd get something like the C standard for free ...