1. Principle

1.1 Rationale

Consistent use of approved coding standards reduces the frequency of common run-time errors and promotes maintainability and re-usability.

2. Examples and Discussion

Coding standards promote readability and maintainability---important features for code that is likely to be used over a period of years or reused on other projects and SWE-061 - Coding Standards in NPR 7150.2 ⁰⁸³ calls for the use of secure coding standards. A quality set of coding standards can improve the quality of code in many other ways as well. The list below specifies a minimal set of standards commonly found in standards for high-reliability software. These rules have been found to reduce the likelihood of run time errors.

1. Restrict the use of dynamic memory allocation to one-time events at system initialization.
2. Use the simplest flow control constructs possible, and avoid the use of “go to”, setjump/longjump.
3. Ensure that all loop constructs have a fixed upper bound, and avoid the use of recursion.
4. Declare data objects at the lowest scope possible.

5. Verify the validity of input parameters at the start of each function, and take appropriate action when inputs are off-nominal. (see also 9.11 Invalid Data Handling and 9.05 Data Interface Integrity design principles) See also Topic 8.01 - Off Nominal Testing .

6. Implement logic to check, and possibly act, on the return value of non-void functions.

See also Topic 8.02 - Software Reliability.

A complete set of coding standards typically includes best practices, such as strict language adherence and the use of automated tools to identify problems either at compile time or run time. Language-specific guidance, domain-specific guidance, local standards for code organization and commenting, and standard file header format are often specified as well.

Good coding standards have two things in common: (1) they are concise and relevant enough to be easily used by programmers and quality assurance professionals in their daily activities; and (2) they enable the use of automated code checking. The first is important for obvious reasons. A standard that is too cumbersome will quickly fall into disuse. The second is important because it reduces cost and increases the likelihood that violations that would lead to program errors will be caught before deployment.

A draft version of design principles produced by the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) includes guidance on the use and development of coding standards. In keeping with a “keep it simple” approach, the standard had only six mandatory practices applicable across all programming languages and allows the inclusion of language-specific and project-specific aspects. The mandatory practices strongly overlapped with the minimal set above, and the standard made it clear that the fundamental practices were not to be overridden by language-specific standards, which in turn were not to be overridden by project-specific standards. This tiered approach makes it easier for an organization to implement a basic set of standards that may be tailored on a per-project basis. This approach supports a Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level 3 and above organization.

JPL has taken a somewhat different approach. All projects are required to identify the coding standards used in the development, but no specific standard is imposed. An institutionally supported C coding standard is available. This standard is broken down into six levels of compliance, each more rigorous than the next. Projects that use the institutional standard must determine the level of compliance appropriate for their project. Projects are allowed to produce their own standard, use an alternative standard, or tailor the institutional standard. Except for a general provision concerning safety-critical software, there are no restrictions on the standards that may be used. This approach also supports a CMMI Level 3 certification.

Specific coding standards in use include JPL's C Coding Standard ³³¹ , GSFC's C Coding Standard for Flight Software ³³³, and GSFC's C++ Coding Standard for Flight Software ³³⁸, which is all available in the Software Processes Across NASA (SPAN)  library. Another resource for coding standards is Gerard Holzmann's "Power of Ten" ⁴¹⁷ paper. There are a number of static analysis tools that can help verify adherence to coding standards, including VectorCast, Polyspace, and Klocwork.

2.1 Additional Guidance

Links to Additional Guidance materials for this subject have been compiled in the Relevant Links table. Click here to see the Additional Guidance in the Resources tab.

3. Inputs

3.1 NESC inputs

See also SWE-185 - Secure Coding Standards Verification, SWE-207 - Secure Coding Practices, Topic 8.02 - Software Reliability.

3.2 Additional Guidance

Links to Additional Guidance materials for this subject have been compiled in the Relevant Links table. Click here to see the Additional Guidance in the Resources tab.

4. Resources

4.1 References

4.2  Additional Guidance

Additional guidance related to this requirement may be found in the following materials in this Handbook:

4.3 Center Process Asset Libraries

See the following link(s) in SPAN for process assets from contributing Centers (NASA Only). 

5. Lessons Learned

5.1 NASA Lessons Learned

Lessons that appear in the NASA LLIS or Center Lessons Learned Databases. ⁴³⁹

• Flight Software Deadly Embrace. Lesson Learned 0369: ⁶⁸⁴ "During a walk-through of the Galileo Spacecraft System fault protection implementation a possible "deadly embrace" in the flight software was uncovered. A deadly embrace is a continuous software looping operation that may preclude the achievement of an acceptable spacecraft state."