Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.unix.programmer > #1100
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.unix.programmer |
| Subject | Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools |
| Date | 2011-08-09 12:19 -0700 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <lny5z29yvb.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> (permalink) |
| References | <87ipq82m8r.fsf@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk> <2d1586efe90a283bc7a47d466db18909@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> <87sjpapvuq.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com> <lnbovyblu2.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <87k4ampmnz.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com> |
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
> 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.
[snip]
As I understand it, the root cause of the failure was that
management decided to use software written for the Ariane 4
without modification. It was written correctly for the Ariane 4;
the kind of out-of-range value that was seen most likely *would*
have indicated a hardware failure.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Back to comp.unix.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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