This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Software: Computing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. C/C++ Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject C/C++, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of C and C++ topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.C/C++Wikipedia:WikiProject C/C++Template:WikiProject C/C++C/C++ Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article falls within the scope of C.

This article can be expanded to incorporate details about the named address spaces (especially example wise- in this case), fixed-point arithmetic, and I/O register access. The TR is quite detailed regarding all of these. snaphat (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I didn't put this under programming languages for the same reason C99 and CX1 aren't. snaphat (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think this section make much sense and is wrong. For example is says that C is used for desktops, while Embedded C is used for microcontrollers. Embedded C may have extensions to C that help in the microcontroller relm, however normal C *can* be used on microcontrollers as well. Is it conflating programming with C in an embedded environment and the use of Embedded C?

There are a number of things that do not quite make sense here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.77.163.111 (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page is mostly copy-paste from http://www.engineersgarage.com/tutorials/emebedded-c-language since 20:02, 11 February 2014‎ Sadaf2605. Thomasa88 (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a problem with http://oasisconsultingservices.in/embedded.aspx though that may be a case of them copying Wikipedia. ~Kvng (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Necessity section contains a bunch of nonsense. It should clarify that embedded systems and their applications grew in size and writing code for them in assembly isn't as feasible anymore, therefore the need for Embedded C. Use of English language is poor with the misuse of "came up". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.9.75.252 (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think most of the article is nonsense. "Embedded C" as per the standard is just a bunch of extensions which might be useful for embedded programmers. Only some of the introductory section is valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.77.163.111 (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The advantages listed are of C over assembler, not of Embedded C over C. I didn't learn anything about Embedded C and I was curious: I'd was unaware of a single language called Embedded C. I've seen lots of flavours of C that have been tweaked for specific CPUs e.g. the MCS-51 friendly ones that started with Keil in the 1990s. --ToaneeM (talk) 08:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, you're talking about a standardisation of that (see http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1169.pdf for what's going on). The advantage of Embedded C over standard C is that you've got access to extra features that are particularly useful in an embedded environment. For the work I've done in the area, the extensions of particular interest were the fixed point types/values (and the saturating math in a few places) which are really horrible to do without language+compiler support; those in turn meant that we could avoid having a floating-point unit in the hardware, which saved both power and chip space. (Our target platform didn't need the other parts.) The biggest annoyance about them was just how weak IDE support for them was; we're talking entire files being marked as errors because it couldn't get over literal values like 1.0R. (The types themselves were easier to bodge around.) The situation may have changed since then, of course. --130.88.208.73 (talk) 07:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May anyone more knowledgable check https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/c/embedded or the report? http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=51126 is a nice summing up The article in this form sums up some nice points, but misses the topic of Embedded C specific details — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.129.202.39 (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]