Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.unix.programmer > #1099

Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools

Show all headers | View raw

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
>> Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201108.rodent.frell.theremailer.net>
>> writes:
> [...]
>>> Yes, Ada language will help with this sort of issue. C isn't safe,
>>
>> http://www.di.unito.it/~damiani/ariane5rep.html
>
> Are you suggesting that the use of Ada was somehow responsible for the
> Ariane 5 failure?

To a degree: What was responsible for the Ariane failure was that
the specification stated that the processer of the functional unit
in question was to be halted in case of a malfunction: It was assumed
that 'malfunctions' would only be caused by hardware problems and
that, in this case, the redundant other functional unit could just
take over. But redundant functional units don't help against software
errors because several functional units exposed to same
condition-triggering-a-software-error will obviously all fail
immediately at the same time. In this particular case, a 16bit
temperature counter overflowed. Because Ada was being used, the
runtime checked for this overflow and triggered an exception which -
conforming with the specification - caused the affected CPU to be
halted.

A similar programming error in a C program, in a (AFAIR) functional
unit which was past the point of being used and just kept running
because nobody bothered to stop it after it had stopped to be useful
wouldn't have cause any effect: The temperature count would just have
wrapped around, possibly, a couple of times.

The bottom line is that no amount of compiler catankerousness will
protect reliably against human neglect and/or stupidity and that "if
no errors were made and all goes all", any programming language will
be entirely adequate.

Back to comp.unix.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

C Code "sanity checking" tools Martin Crouch <spamspamspam@spaml.com> - 2011-08-08 12:00 +0100
  Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-08-08 12:09 +0100
    Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201108.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-08-09 08:50 +0200
      Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2011-08-09 10:55 +0100
        Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-08-09 14:15 +0100
        Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-10 01:58 +0200
        Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-10 12:29 +0200
      Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-08-09 14:17 +0100
        Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-09 09:17 -0700
          Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-08-09 17:36 +0100
            Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-09 12:19 -0700
              Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-08-09 20:36 +0100
                Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-08-09 19:24 -0700
                Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-08-10 10:27 +0100
                Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-08-10 14:01 +0100
                Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-08-13 09:42 +0200
                Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-13 16:04 -0700
                Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-08-14 19:46 +0100
  Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-08 23:12 +1200
    Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-08-08 15:35 +0100
      Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Martin Crouch <spamspamspam@spaml.com> - 2011-08-08 16:05 +0100
        Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-08-08 22:57 +0100
          Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2011-08-08 23:32 +0100
      Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-09 08:03 +1200
        Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-08-08 22:51 +0100
          Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-09 10:01 +1200
    Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2011-08-08 22:06 +0000
      Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-09 10:18 +1200
        Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2011-08-08 23:25 +0000
  Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-08-08 14:01 +0100
    Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2011-08-08 14:47 +0100
      Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Martin Crouch <spamspamspam@spaml.com> - 2011-08-08 16:08 +0100
        Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Marc <marc.glisse@gmail.com> - 2011-08-08 15:39 +0000
      Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-08-08 10:20 -0700
      Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-08-09 00:59 +0100
  Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools mathog <dmathog@gmail.com> - 2011-08-08 08:48 -0700

csiph-web