From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d923bb34ea827f56
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ken Garlington <garlingtonke@lfwc.lockheed.com>
Subject: Re: Ada / Boeing 777
Date: 1996/03/18
Message-ID: <314D2D86.41A8@lfwc.lockheed.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 143745055
references: <4ia0l3INNatk@faatcrl.faa.gov> <DoDsIM.3MF@cix.compulink.co.uk>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
Date: 1996-03-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Tim Rowe wrote:
> 
> AIUI the Airbus range has triplicated *diverse* systems for critical
> functions. The 777 has triplicated *identical* systems (I'm trusting the
> press for this, so it may not be gospel).

If I recall the TRI-Ada stuff on this, it's the same source code, compiled
with three different compilers for three different targets. So, it
depends on what you mean by "diversity."

As Levison and Knight's work indicates (and my experience bears out),
code diversity don't mean much, though.