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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Re: Safety-critical development in Ada and Eiffel Date: 1997/07/17 Message-ID: <33CEA754.17D2@flash.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 257525613 References: <33CD1722.2D24@calfp.co.uk> <33CE082E.65FF@calfp.co.uk> Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Reply-To: kennieg@flash.net Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-07-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Nick Leaton wrote: > > From other posters, it seems that with life critical systems (avionics) > that this is an important consideration. Am I the only one who finds > this worrying, that systems you have to trust depend on some calculation > as to how the program is going to run? What happens if a new compiler > comes out that has a different optimisation technique? Our rule of thumb is that any significant change to the code generation toolset requires a complete re-execution of the tests/analyses associated with the software. We prefer to "freeze" toolset versions at certain points in the development process for this reason. > > -- > > Nick