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=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,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: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
From: Ken Garlington <kennieg@flash.net>
Subject: Re: Safety-critical development in Ada and Eiffel
Date: 1997/07/24
Message-ID: <33D7F7CD.3E36@flash.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 258798023
References: <33D5F2D8.39A@hello.confusion.nl> <EDsu9z.8yD@syd.csa.com.au>
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: 1997-07-24T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Don Harrison wrote:
> 
> :So even though timing specifications with postconditions are useful, it
> :definitely is not sufficient for many HRT systems.
> 
> Agree, you also need preconditions, check-instructions and invariants.

I responded elsewhere in this thread about difficulties in trying
to accurately measure thread timings at the object level, but let
me ask you this: Have you used the technique you describe in a
production hard real-time system? Or is this just a theoretical
discussion?

> 
> Don.
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Don Harrison             donh@syd.csa.com.au