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: 103376,7e8cebf09cf80560
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.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" <robin51@dodo.com.au>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: 
 <a8387564-0835-467d-a461-60a093c38133@k15g2000prk.googlegroups.com>
 <op.vscizsqqlzeukk@jellix.jlfencey.com>
 <4d80b140$0$43832$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <op.vsf33xi3z25lew@macpro-eth1.krischik.com>
 <4d81491c$0$43833$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <ilvhsl$abd$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Subject: Re: How would Ariane 5 have behaved if overflow checking were not
 turned off?
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:15:25 +1100
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Message-ID: <4d8475d7$0$43834$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 123.3.27.205
X-Trace: 1300526551 exi-reader.telstra.net 43834 123.3.27.205:1030
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:19282
Date: 2011-03-19T08:15:25+11:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Alex R. Mosteo wrote in message ...
>robin wrote:

>> Martin Krischik wrote in message ...
>>>Am 16.03.2011, 11:41 Uhr, schrieb robin <robin51@dodo.com.au>:
>>>
>>>> That was the major blunder that they made,
>>>> namely, treating a programming error as a hardware error.
>>
>>>Let me repeat: There was no programming error.
>
>> Let me repeat:  The major blunder made was in treating
>> a programming error as a hardware error.
>> The error was in assuming that there was no possibility of a
>> programming error, and therefore it must be hardware error.
>> This error was made in the Ariadne 4.
>
>> This attitide that "it can't happen" therefore there's no need to test for
>> it is responsible for run-time failures from the early days of
>> programming.
>
>> Remember Robert's Law: "Even if it can't go wrong, it will".
>
>> In a real-time system, EVERY possibility must be tested for.

>IIRC there was the extra factor of limited CPU budget; not checking this
>conversion (that, again, for Ariane IV would mean a hardware error) would be
>even more justified.

I don't recall seeing anything about that.
In any case it would be irrelevant.