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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,7e8cebf09cf80560 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin1!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!exi-transit.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!exi-spool.telstra.net!exi-reader.telstra.net!not-for-mail From: "robin" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <4d80b140$0$43832$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net><4d814af0$0$43831$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> Subject: Re: How would Ariane 5 have behaved if overflow checking werenotturned off? Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 22:04:27 +1100 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: <4d8200cb$0$43837$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 123.3.20.123 X-Trace: 1300365516 exi-reader.telstra.net 43837 123.3.20.123:1030 Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:19246 Date: 2011-03-17T22:04:27+11:00 List-Id: Simon Wright wrote in message ... >"robin" writes: > >> But only if the error was hardware, which it wasn't. > >No, and it wasn't bloody software either!!! I'm afraid that it was (software). Consider this: If just ONE unprotected overflow occurs, the mission is lost. Not a SINGLE unprotected conversion should have been included. > it was SYSTEM DESIGN!!! and >no amount of faffing about at the edges of software will ever fix that. The fact remains that in that real-time system, unprotected conversions were included. No-one experienced in real-time programming would have permitted those unprotected conversions.