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


Groups > comp.unix.programmer > #1101

Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools

From Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com>
Newsgroups comp.unix.programmer
Subject Re: C Code "sanity checking" tools
Date 2011-08-09 20:36 +0100
Message-ID <877h6mpeb2.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com> (permalink)
References (1 earlier) <2d1586efe90a283bc7a47d466db18909@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> <87sjpapvuq.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com> <lnbovyblu2.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <87k4ampmnz.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com> <lny5z29yvb.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>

Show all headers | View raw


Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> 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.

One of the nice properties of software-induced disasters is that no
one is ever responsible for them, except maybe 'some unknown
programmer wo left the company a decade ago'. You understood
'correctly' that this is the gut of the failure report: It happened to
work on an earlier model. Clearly, by that time, no problem existed!

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