Capabilities · Functional Safety
MISRA baselines, static analysis and unit testing in CI, MC/DC coverage, certified compilers and runtimes, and the tool-qualification work an assessor asks for, for ISO 26262, IEC 61508, DO-178C and IEC 62304 teams in India.
GSAS works at the base of the V, where code is written and verified, and underneath it, where the tools have to be trusted. Each card lights its step; the dashed points are your own safety process.
Every safety standard expects a language subset to be enforced. The work is getting a real codebase there without drowning the team in findings.
Tool: Perforce QAC
Defects and coding-standard violations caught on every change, not in a report at the end of the project.
Tool: Klocwork
Requirements-based unit tests, with the coverage measure the integrity level asks for, MC/DC included.
Tool: TESSY (Razorcat)
The compiler and RTOS are part of the safety argument too. Starting from certified ones removes a qualification job from the plan.
Tools: Arm Compiler for Embedded FuSa · Arm FuSa RTS
Tests that pass on a host still have to pass on the real core, and trace shows what the code actually executed.
Tools: SEGGER J-Link · J-Trace PRO
Each standard asks you to argue that your tools are fit for their job: ISO 26262-8 tool confidence levels, IEC 61508-3 tool classes, DO-330 for airborne software.
ISO 26262-8 · IEC 61508-3 · DO-330
Hazard analysis, safety goals, the safety concept and the safety case belong to your safety process. Everything above produces evidence for them.
Evidence in, argument out
ISO 26262 is the road-vehicle adaptation of IEC 61508, so much of the evidence carries across. The standards pages set out what each one asks of software and tools.
Road vehicles
ISO 26262
ASIL A to D
What it asksIndustrial, the parent standard
IEC 61508
SIL 1 to 4
What it asksAirborne software
DO-178C
Levels A to E
What it asksMedical device software
IEC 62304
Classes A to C
Coding guidelines
MISRA and AUTOSAR
C, C++ and C++14 rules
What it asksVehicle cybersecurity and updates
UNECE R155 and R156
Type approval
What it asksAs stated by each vendor
A certificate covers the tool for the use cases in its safety manual. Your tool-confidence argument still has to cover how your project uses it. Confirm the scope per release before locking a plan.
| Tool | ISO 26262 | IEC 61508 | IEC 62304 | Railway |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arm Compiler for Embedded FuSa TÜV SÜD, per Arm | ASIL D | SIL 3 | Class C | SIL 4 (EN 50716) |
| Arm FuSa RTS TÜV SÜD, per Arm | ASIL D | SIL 3 | Class C | SIL 4 (EN 50128) |
| Perforce QAC TÜV SÜD, per Perforce | Certified | Certified | Certified | EN 50716 |
| Klocwork TÜV SÜD, per Perforce | Certified | Certified | Certified | EN 50716 |
| TESSY Qualified, per Razorcat | Qualified | Qualified | Qualified | EN 50128 |
Partner lines GSAS carries, set up in your pipeline with application engineering and INR invoicing. Figures are the vendor's own, as published on each product page.
Perforce
MISRA and AUTOSAR compliance analysis for C and C++.
Perforce
Static analysis built to gate CI on large, multi-branch codebases.
Razorcat
Unit, module and integration testing for embedded C and C++.
Arm
Safety-certified C and C++ compiler for Arm cores.
Arm
Safety-qualified RTOS and runtime for Cortex-M.
SEGGER
Streaming instruction trace for execution and timing evidence.
Related: Compliance hub · Embedded software · CAN and LIN testing · Razorcat · Perforce
Most teams arrive with one of these. Pick the one closest to yours.
01
Existing code, new standard
Scan the codebase, triage what comes back, and agree what gets fixed, suppressed or recorded as a deviation, so the team starts from a number it can drive down.
02
Assessment on the calendar
Classify how each tool is used, deploy the vendor qualification kits, and assemble the tool documentation before the assessor asks for it.
03
Scaling across ECU programmes
Static analysis, unit tests and coverage running on every change, with reports the assessor and the programme manager can both read.
Tell us the standard, the integrity level and the toolchain you have today. GSAS engineers reply from India with what the evidence needs and which tools will produce it.
No. A certificate covers the tool for the use cases in its safety manual. ISO 26262 still places the argument that your tools are fit for their job on you, for the way you use them. A certified tool makes that argument much shorter; it does not remove it.
Neither ISO 26262 nor DO-178C names MISRA C as mandatory. ISO 26262 rates the enforcement of a language subset as highly recommended at every ASIL, and MISRA C is the subset most teams use to meet it.
ISO 26262-6 highly recommends MC/DC structural coverage at the software unit level for ASIL D. TESSY measures statement, branch and MC/DC coverage, among others.
As stated by each vendor: Arm Compiler for Embedded FuSa and Arm FuSa RTS are TÜV SÜD certified to ISO 26262 ASIL D, IEC 61508 SIL 3 and IEC 62304 Class C; Perforce QAC and Klocwork are TÜV SÜD certified for ISO 26262, IEC 61508 and IEC 62304; and Razorcat states TESSY is qualified for IEC 61508, IEC 62304, ISO 26262 and EN 50128. Confirm the scope per release before locking a plan.
Yes. GSAS classifies how each tool is used in your project, deploys the vendor qualification kits, and helps prepare the tool-qualification documentation your assessor reviews.
Engineering is led from Bengaluru, with offices in Chennai, Pune, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Delhi NCR among others, and MISRA and static-analysis workshops run across India.
Blog
Arm, SEGGER, Perforce and Siemens EDA have each put AI inside a step of the engineering process rather than on top of it: debug, remediation, design entry, inference on the part. GSAS sets out the position behind our coverage of each: which steps are now worth automating, and which keep a human because the cost of being wrong is a recall.
Finding a defect in month 2 instead of month 14 is a budget decision before it is a quality decision. This sets out what the published evidence supports, what it does not, including the 100x multiplier that traces back to a course handout rather than a study, and how an Indian embedded team builds the case on its own numbers.
Trade coverage keeps putting CEV Stage V in October 2026. The gazette puts it on 1 January 2025, after one deferral and no band-by-band split. Here is the notification chain, what the October 2026 dates really govern, and what the limits mean on the bench.
AI has entered both the development flow and the shipped product, Rust is taking new safety-critical code that would once have been C, and the guidance layer is moving to cover both. A guide to five Perforce resources on that shift, from the GSAS engineering team in India.
India's functional safety talent pool grew up automotive. Earth-moving machinery answers to a different series with a different family tree, and reading one through the lens of the other produces confident, expensive errors.
Summarising TC8 as a layer 1 to layer 4 suite is wrong in both directions. The public OPEN Alliance ECU test documents run from transmitter distortion up to a SOME/IP chapter with its own standardised test stub, and they contain exactly one time synchronisation test case. This is what those documents enumerate, chapter by chapter, what genuinely lives above their boundary, why a passing ECU can still fail against a partner node, and how much pre-compliance work a Tier-1 in India can honestly do in-house before a test house visit. Written by the GSAS Micro Systems engineering team in India.
