Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #9282
| From | Jacob Sparre Andersen <jacob@jacob-sparre.dk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: Two stages of debugging |
| Date | 2018-09-19 07:51 +0200 |
| Organization | JSA Research & Innovation |
| Message-ID | <87r2hqt4p2.fsf@jacob-sparre.dk> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <f3e4e83f-fd7d-496e-a8d9-5f77a35af280@googlegroups.com> <rt277f-9if.ln1@gangtai.home.grep.be> <ab63c9f6-592b-4738-ad98-877b4684110f@googlegroups.com> <i1d77f-4m9.ln1@gangtai.home.grep.be> <f194ffeb-70ec-490a-8800-5f3100970bc5@googlegroups.com> |
Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> writes:
> On Tuesday, 18 September 2018 16:19:23 UTC+2, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On 9/18/18 1:43 PM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>> > Yet I'd argue that, even at that level, 100% coverage, now of the
>> > requirements, is a rather counter-productive myth.
>>
>> I agree that it's difficult to reach .
>
> It's *impossible* *in principle*,
Strange. DO-178B and DO-178C requires 100% MC/DC coverage (not only
100% statement coverage) for the most critical level of avionics
software. As far as I know, that is routinely achived. (Well, as much
as designing an airplane can be called routine.)
I'm not saying that it is the most cost-effective way of identifying
errors, but we have to respect that it actually works reasonably well.
Greetings,
Jacob
--
"There are only two types of data:
Data which has been backed up
Data which has not been lost - yet"
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Two stages of debugging Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> - 2018-09-17 23:31 +0300
Re: Two stages of debugging David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-09-18 09:13 +0200
Re: Two stages of debugging Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-18 03:39 -0700
Re: Two stages of debugging Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-18 03:34 -0700
Re: Two stages of debugging Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-09-18 12:40 +0200
Re: Two stages of debugging Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-18 03:46 -0700
Re: Two stages of debugging Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-09-18 13:08 +0200
Re: Two stages of debugging Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-18 04:43 -0700
Re: Two stages of debugging Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-09-18 16:00 +0200
Re: Two stages of debugging Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-18 10:36 -0700
Re: Two stages of debugging Jacob Sparre Andersen <jacob@jacob-sparre.dk> - 2018-09-19 07:51 +0200
Re: Two stages of debugging Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-19 03:43 -0700
On the usefulness of testing coverage (was: Re: Two stages of debugging) Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-09-19 13:46 +0200
Re: On the usefulness of testing coverage (was: Re: Two stages of debugging) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-19 08:20 -0700
Re: Two stages of debugging Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 12:02 -0700
Re: Two stages of debugging Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-19 03:39 -0700
Re: Two stages of debugging Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> - 2018-09-20 22:37 +0300
Re: Two stages of debugging Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-20 12:53 -0700
csiph-web