Vinzent Hoefler <0439279208b62c95f1880bf0f8776eeb@t-domaingrabbing.de> wrote in message ...
>Elias Salomão Helou Neto wrote:

>> Since then I have been wondering. If compiler checking where actually
>> turned on, what would have happened?

>The same, according to the specification.

>> How could it avoid the disaster?

>Not at all.

On the contrary., an error handler would have performed
something useful.
The crux of the matter is that the data bus would not have been
loaded with an error number [which was then treated as guidance data].

>> Right now I think of three possibilities, the two former seem very
>> unlikely to me.
>
>> a) It would, even if the problem went undetected during testing, have
>> made the developers actually develop code handling this exceptional
>> possibility.

>By handling it exactly the way it was supposed to be:

>Assuming a hardware error and leave control to the redundant subsystem.

That was the major blunder that they made,
namely, treating a programming error as a hardware error.
By doing that, they guaranteed failure of the mission.

>> Which one, if any, is close to reality?

>As it has been mentioned here many times before, the software behaved
>exactly as specified and it is very unlikely that _any_ error handling
>could have avoided the problem

An error handler would have rescued the mission.